>>>>> "Samy" == Samy Al Bahra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Samy> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:28:15 -0400 David Gilbert Samy> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As you conjecture, a syscall-less or syscall-restricted environment >> *should* be safe ... if your syscall changes are bulletproof >> *_and_* the rest of the runtime environment is bulletproof. Samy> Good system call policies are a WONDERFUL feature at a system Samy> administrator's hands. There is no such thing as a syscall-less Samy> environment but only a restricted (either at the same layer as Samy> the system calls or above in terms of code path). Still... it would seem to me to be safer to use a complete emulation environment than risk getting everything else right. >> Isn't a syscall required to finish off exit()? Samy> Yes, consult kern_exit.c How is this related to the discussion Samy> though? The fact is, most people would not even want to TOUCH Samy> sys_exit and friends since there are no real security advantages Samy> there. In otherwords, an exit system call remains completely the Samy> same. Ah, well ... I was understanding that origional email wanted a syscall-less environment and was just further arguing the point. Dave. -- ============================================================================ |David Gilbert, Independent Contractor. | Two things can only be | |Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | equal if and only if they | |http://daveg.ca | are precisely opposite. | =========================================================GLO================ _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
