Re: secure computing for 2.6.7

[Bernd Eckenfels]

In article <20040801155128.GG6295@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you wrote:
>> where this has applied fix 3501 in the 2.6 branch and 123 according to
>> vendor MM, so you do not need to understand vendors XXX schema. However I am
> 
> if all vendors uses different numbers (i.e. vendor MM.123) then I can as
> well build the ugly database in function of the `uname -r`
> vendorization, building a database of uname -r or a database of
> MM/linux-26/whatever isn't going to be any different.

This is not about different vendors certifying the same level. Mainstream
software will always require a general fix-level, however internal software
may require some other hardening/configuration. Distributions and even end
users could use that string to certify "this build is compliant to
requirement level 123"

But I agree, it might be overkill for the utsname, however I feel leaving
that out of a secure level syscall may be underkill .)

Greetings
Bernd
-- 
eckes privat - http://www.eckes.org/
Project Freefire - http://www.freefire.org/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/