> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Dan Aloni wrote:
> > > > without breaking anything. It also reports of such calls by using printk.
> > > Get real.
> > Why do you always have to be insulting alex? Sheesh.
> Sigh... Not intended to be an insult. Plain and simple advice. Idea is
> broken for absolutely obvious reasons (namely, every real-life program
This doesnt stop syscalls, only syscalls from writable areas.
> contains at least one syscall that it _can_ execute). Expecting _any_
> part of userland to be rewritten into the form that would not have
> such places (i.e. all IO is done by trusted processes that poll
> memory areas shared with the programs needing said IO, exit is done
> either by explicit kill() from another process or by dumping core, signals
> are done by putting request into shared area and letting a trusted process
> do the thing, etc.) warrants such suggestion, doesn't it? If somebody
> seriously believes that it can be done (and that's the only way how this
> patch could give any protection)... Well, scratch "get real", I've got a
> nice bridge for sale.
That's a bit OTT, no? ;)
Mark Zealey (aka JALH on irc.openprojects.net: #zealos and many more) email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
UL++++$ (GCM/GCS/GS/GM)GUG! dpu? s-:-@ a15! C+++>$ P++$>+++@ L+++>+++++$ !E---? W+++>$ N++@>+ o->+ w--- !M--? !V--? PS- PE--@ !PGP----? r++ !t---?@ !X---? !R- b+ !DI---? e->+++++ h+++*! y-
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/