Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261248AbULAEzs (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:55:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261245AbULAEzr (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:55:47 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:20449 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261248AbULAEzi (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:55:38 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:55:33 -0800 From: Chris Wright To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Chris Wright , Andrew Morton , Michael Kerrisk , Linus Torvalds , Manfred Spraul , Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] shmtcl SHM_LOCK perms Message-ID: <20041130205533.O2357@build.pdx.osdl.net> References: <20041130125045.E2357@build.pdx.osdl.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from hugh@veritas.com on Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 01:00:13AM +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 664 Lines: 16 * Hugh Dickins (hugh@veritas.com) wrote: > But that's not the only reason for SHM_LOCK, and all you're telling us > there is that the owner of sensitive data should be careful who they > give read permission to - indeed! So I still tend to agree with > Michael, that the most natural restriction is to owner or creator - > relax that if some app actually has a good case for relaxing it. Yup, I agree. thanks, -chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/