Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:10:00 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@vsecurity.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, kees.cook@canonical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Restrict unprivileged access to kernel syslog
Message-ID: <20101110181000.GC22410@elte.hu>
References: <1289348309.7380.31.camel@dan>
 <20101110082516.GB3341@elte.hu>
 <20101110072638.b0e5473d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20101110072638.b0e5473d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1016
Lines: 28


* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> OK by me, apart from ...
> 
> a) I'd question the need for the config option.  Are distros really
>    so lame that they can't trust themselves to poke a number into
>    procfs at boot time?

When it comes to security i personally prefer 'permanent' defaults that is a 
property of the booting image. I'd even change the default for the x86 defconfig for 
example - and we could make this option default-y in the future. (We cannot ever 
make the sysctl default itself default-1, it would break compatibility with old 
behavior.)

> b) we have "dmesg_restrict" and "CONFIG_RESTRICT_DMESG".  Less
>    dyslexia, please.

Good point. CONFIG_DMESG_RESTRICT is the proper hierarchical naming i suspect.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/