On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 17:28 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 17:16 -0400, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 05:00:51PM -0400, James Morris wrote: > > > This should be an unsigned long. > > > > > > I wonder if the default should be for this value to be zero (i.e. > > > preserve > > > existing behavior). It could break binaries, albeit potentially insecure > > > > Agreed - DOSemu type apps and lrmi need to map at zero for vm86 > > While I understand, there are a few users who will have problems with > this default are we really better to not provide this defense in depth > for the majority of users and let those with problems turn it off rather > than provide no defense by default? I could even provide a different > default for SELinux and non-SELinux if anyone saw value in that? But if > others think that off default is best I'll send another patch shortly > with the unsigned long fix and the default set to 0. My hope is then > that distros will figure out to turn this on.
I'd be ok with having a different default for SELinux vs. non-SELinux, i.e. no restrictions by default under dummy/capability, but restrict it by default to 64k if selinux is enabled. Then we can use policy to grant it as needed to the specific programs. -- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
