Re: syscall: introduce sendfd() syscall (v.2)

2014-12-07 Thread Pavel Machek
On Fri 2014-12-05 13:22:50, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > > 2.a. If task A has sufficient capabilities to send signals to task B, then > > task A is already in position to do anything it wants with task B, including > > killing it outright. > > Not entirely true. > > - We have securirty models

Re: syscall: introduce sendfd() syscall (v.2)

2014-12-05 Thread Alex Dubov
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 12:22 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > >> 2.a. If task A has sufficient capabilities to send signals to task B, then >> task A is already in position to do anything it wants with task B, including >> killing it outright. > > Not entirely true. > > - We have securirty models

Re: syscall: introduce sendfd() syscall (v.2)

2014-12-05 Thread One Thousand Gnomes
> 2.a. If task A has sufficient capabilities to send signals to task B, then > task A is already in position to do anything it wants with task B, including > killing it outright. Not entirely true. - We have securirty models like SELinux - We have namespaces and being able to send an fd between