Re: Securelevel bitmap patch

Raul Miller (rdm@test.legislate.com)
Mon, 6 Apr 1998 09:32:33 -0400


Richard Gooch <rgooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU> wrote:
> Sorry, it doesn't make sense for this example. That's not to say that
> the child mask idea cannot be of any use, but so far we don't have an
> example of how it would be useful. I think you've made a similar
> comment about GGI ;-)

Three choices:

(1) suid, or analogous
(2) send message to a daemon which has privs
(3) re-engineer process
(4) don't use X

> So perhaps the child mask shouldn't be implemented until there is a
> clear need (i.e. can't be reasonably done another way). It can always
> be added later without too much drama.

Unlike KGI, per-process bitmaps don't break anything.

-- 
Raul

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu