On-line judgment kernel module

[David Gilbert]

>>>>> "Samy" == Samy Al Bahra <samy at kerneled.com> writes:

Samy> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:28:15 -0400 David Gilbert
Samy> <dgilbert at dclg.ca> wrote:

>> As you conjecture, a syscall-less or syscall-restricted environment
>> *should* be safe ... if your syscall changes are bulletproof
>> *_and_* the rest of the runtime environment is bulletproof.
Samy> Good system call policies are a WONDERFUL feature at a system
Samy> administrator's hands. There is no such thing as a syscall-less
Samy> environment but only a restricted (either at the same layer as
Samy> the system calls or above in terms of code path).

Still... it would seem to me to be safer to use a complete emulation
environment than risk getting everything else right.

>> Isn't a syscall required to finish off exit()?
Samy> Yes, consult kern_exit.c How is this related to the discussion
Samy> though? The fact is, most people would not even want to TOUCH
Samy> sys_exit and friends since there are no real security advantages
Samy> there. In otherwords, an exit system call remains completely the
Samy> same.

Ah, well ... I was understanding that origional email wanted a
syscall-less environment and was just further arguing the point.

Dave.

-- 
============================================================================
|David Gilbert, Independent Contractor.       | Two things can only be     |
|Mail:       dave at daveg.ca                    |  equal if and only if they |
|http://daveg.ca                              |   are precisely opposite.  |
=========================================================GLO================