It occurs to me that my previous reply was unnecessarily long and missed the point. Trying again:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Andrew G. Morgan <mor...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Andrew G. Morgan <mor...@kernel.org> wrote: >>> My Nack remains that you are eliminating the explicit enforcement of >>> selective inheritance. A lockable secure bit protecting access to your >>> prctl() function would address this concern. >> >> Would a sysctl or securebit that *optionally* allows pA to be disabled >> satisfy you? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It would be kind of nice to remove your nack. I think that the above is the relevant question. Could you answer it? --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
