Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757581AbXFUDcm (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:32:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753096AbXFUDcf (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:32:35 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([192.83.249.54]:59715 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751981AbXFUDce (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:32:34 -0400 Message-ID: <4679F14F.9050008@zytor.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:32:31 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070419) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Albert Cahalan CC: William Lee Irwin III , linux-kernel Subject: Re: JIT emulator needs References: <787b0d920706072335v10d6025cwe1437194b6c60d84@mail.gmail.com> <20070619150824.GH11781@holomorphy.com> <787b0d920706192016l660dd5b0mbf300581db81ac62@mail.gmail.com> <20070620160116.GI6909@holomorphy.com> <467957CB.8020704@zytor.com> <787b0d920706201125g2368a4e1i2d115b0b2d5399e5@mail.gmail.com> <46797747.9020904@zytor.com> <787b0d920706202021t567b2fefu869a03ef76f245da@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <787b0d920706202021t567b2fefu869a03ef76f245da@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1182 Lines: 30 Albert Cahalan wrote: >> >> That's fine. That's a policy decision. That's what a security policy >> *is*. The owner of the system has decided, by security policy, that >> that is not allowed. Bypassing that is not acceptable. > > Fixing a bug should be acceptable. > That's not what you're trying to do, though. You're trying to change the behaviour underneath the security policy. If there is a bug, it's in the security policy and that's where it needs to be changed. > Look, let's back up a bit here. At a high level, what exactly do > you imagine that this behavior was intended for? I suggest you > list some examples of the attacks that are blocked. > > Can you come up with a reasonable argument that the current behavior > is the least painful restriction required to block those attacks? > Does the current behavior block any attack that the proposed behavior > would not? (list the attacks please) See above. -hpa - 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/