Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 23:08:20 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Geoffrey McRae <geoff@rabidhost.com>
Cc: Nick Andrew <nick@nick-andrew.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: New Security Features, Please Comment
Message-ID: <20081203230820.4473a162@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <1228344292.6993.27.camel@lappy.spacevs.com>
References: <1228260494.24232.21.camel@compy.ivent.com.au>
	<20081203005338.6472db7a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	<1228268657.6679.4.camel@lappy.spacevs.com>
	<20081203124252.GD11807@mail.local.tull.net>
	<1228344292.6993.27.camel@lappy.spacevs.com>
Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street,
 Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a
 Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 683
Lines: 17

> The children are pre-forked, so the overhead is in the setup... then
> when the app recieves a request, it sets the child's uid to the uid of
> the website, and then passes the request to the child, which, now, the
> child is running as the website owner.

But the child process may already have been trojanned by a previous user
so it gains you nothing.

> It is more secure then just doing nothing.

I'm not convinced. Not remotely.

--
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/