Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> writes: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:35 PM, One Thousand Gnomes > <gno...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:30:48 -0700 >> Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: >> >>> [new thread because this sort of combines two threads] >>> >>> There is recent interest in having a way to turn generally-available >>> kernel features off. Maybe we should add a good one so we can stop >>> bikeshedding and avoid proliferating dumb interfaces. >> >> We sort of have one. It's called capable(). Just needs extending to cover >> anything else you care about, and probably all the numeric constants >> replacing with textual names.
The big difference is capable only subdivides roots powers (aka things most applications should not have). When we start talking about things that things that are safe for most applications capable is probably not the right tool for the job. A much closer match is the personality system call. Look at setarch to see how it is used. My biggest concern with personality is there are only 32bits to play with. Still I expect what you want may be a sandbox personality, that disables everything that could possibly be a problem (including access to the personality syscall). Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
