* Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Oh, and yes, I think the npti flag should also break ptrace(). I do agree
> > with
> > Andy that it's a "capability", although I do not think it should actually
> > be
> > implemented as one.
>
> For all that Linux capabilities are crap, nopti walks like one and quacks
> like
> one. It needs to affect ptrace() permissions, it needs a way to disable it
> systemwide, it needs LSM integration, etc. Using CAP_DISABLE_PTI gives us
> all
> of this without tons of churn, auditing, and a whole new configuration thingy
> for each LSM. And I avoids permanently polluting ptrace checks, the LSM
> interface, etc for what is, essentially, a performance hack to work around a
> blatant error in the design of some CPUs.
>
> Plus, with ambient caps, we already did the nasty part of the with and
> finished
> all the relevant bikeshedding.
>
> So I'd rather just hold my nose and add the new capability bit.
Those all seem pretty valid arguments to me.
Thanks,
Ingo
