CERT.ORG has just notified we-last-notified of a ptrace problem. If there's anyplace in the current kernel code that LSM should make NO logic changes, right now, it's there. Preserve the logic, please, and watch how the kernel community fixes/fixed it. J. Melvin Jones |>------------------------------------------------------ || J. MELVIN JONES jmjonesat_private |>------------------------------------------------------ || Microcomputer Systems Consultant || Software Developer || Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration || Network and Systems Administration |>------------------------------------------------------ || http://www.jmjones.com/ |>------------------------------------------------------ On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Seth Arnold wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 11:31:54AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > 2) The rmb call in ptrace. I see no valid reason to make this > > conditional, and it just makes the code uglier. > > The reasoning for putting the rmb() in a conditional is to follow, as > closely as possible within the limits of what the LSM patch intends to > modify, the pre-LSM ptrace behavior. > > Given the extreme difficulties of keeping ptrace sane, I think this is a > worth-while goal. > > -- > The Bill of Rights: 7 out of 10 rights haven't been sold yet! Contact > your congressman for details how *you* can buy one today! > > _______________________________________________ > linux-security-module mailing list > linux-security-moduleat_private > http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module > _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 26 2001 - 12:11:32 PDT