[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    Re: QUESTION: 32-bit UIDs and Linux 2.3
From:       Marc Mutz <Marc () Mutz ! com>
Date:       1999-07-09 11:35:05
[Download RAW message or body]

Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> 
> Chris Wing writes:
> 
> > How much backwards compatibility do you think there should be:
> >
> Suggested rules:
> 
> 1. Always allow 32-bit calls.
> 
> 2. Always have 16-bit calls in the kernel. (see below)
> 
> 3. Let unprivileged processes get garbage UID values. The software
>    isn't very dangerous, and it might work fine.
> 
> 4. If any large UID is ever set for any process, privileged processes
>    must not be allowed to make any 16-bit calls. Log the problem,
>    stop the process, and return failure if the process continues.
> 
> 5. Have a run-time config option to kill any privileged process that
>    tries to use a 16-bit call.
> 
> 6. Have a run-time config option to allow 16-bit calls from privileged
>    processes that are not setuid.
> 
Hmm, altough I'm fully aware of these points being restricted to UID
issues, it is very reminiscent of the win16->win32 transition and all
its pain (& overhead). Esp. items 4-6 seem rather ugly to me. Was this
meant to be a temporary workaround - maybe introduced in 2.3/2.4 and
then 2.6/3.0 support only 32bit-UID - or do such things become legacy
ballast until a 'Linux NT' is written from scratch to remove all of
this?

Marc

-- 
Marc Mutz <Marc@Mutz.com>                    http://marc.mutz.com/
University of Bielefeld, Dep. of Mathematics / Dep. of Physics

PGP-keyID's:   0xd46ce9ab (RSA), 0x7ae55b9e (DSS/DH)


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]