Seahorse issues

Coleman Kane cokane at
Sat Apr 12 18:22:09 UTC 2008

On Sat, 2008-04-12 at 13:51 -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-04-12 at 13:38 -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-04-12 at 12:43 -0400, Coleman Kane wrote:
> > > 
> > > As for the mlock() privilege issue, I am not sure what we'll do about
> > > that. It would be nice, at some point, to support that feature for
> > > normal users. As long as I'm diligent about my swap-space, etc... and
> > > access to my workstation, I'm *pretty* secure. Things like common-use
> > > lab computers, etc... are probably more appropriate for this feature.
> > 
> > Since we already have an rlimit for locked memory (RLIMIT_MEMLOCK), and
> > it is used by the mlock(2) syscall, what about the attached patch to add
> > a sysctl to control user access to mlock (but not allowing mlockall(2))?
> > This has been tested to fix the gnome-keyring issue when the sysctl is
> > set to 1.  If this is agreeable, I can add some manpage docs as well.
> Minor modification to allow munlock(2) as well as mlock(2).
> Joe

I've reviewed these patches, and also read up on the Linux 2.6.9+
implementation, as well as referred to various documentations about it.
I'd like to float an email to current@ and see what comes up there
regarding unprivileged mlock(2). There might already be a "more proper"
approach that just isn't being employed.

The one thing that worries me is whether or not this could be used by a
local user to bring about a DoS on a machine. I *think* that, if you set
the hard limit during startup, then enforce a good soft-limit, then
you'll be pretty safe.

Anyhow, I'll see what sort of comments I can get.

Coleman Kane

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :

More information about the freebsd-gnome mailing list