3.2-rc1 rebase review
tim.gardner at canonical.com
Thu Nov 10 03:14:59 UTC 2011
On 11/09/2011 04:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Tetsuo Handa
> <from-ubuntu at i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
>> passing security=yama and passing security=none generates the same result
>> because capability hooks are no-op.
>> I'm suggesting that we can remove
>> security_ops->ptrace_access_check == yama_ptrace_access_check
>> security_ops->path_link == yama_path_link
>> security_ops->inode_follow_link == yama_inode_follow_link
>> security_ops->task_prctl == yama_task_prctl
>> security_ops->task_free == yama_task_free
>> checks by removing
> Okay, I see what you mean now. It's skipping the register_security()
> part that hadn't sunk in. :)
> Tim, Leann, do you want me to provide a pull request with a revert and
> new patch, or just send a patch with the changes?
Kees - I'd like whatever we carry to look as close as possible to what
is eventually accepted upstream. We are free to rebase Precise (and
rewrite branch history) for awhile yet.
Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com
More information about the kernel-team