Subject: Re: The reason for securelevel
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Elad Efrat <elad@NetBSD.org>
Date: 01/26/2006 21:20:19
der Mouse wrote:
> Rather, I read it as having knobs for x, y, and z in the kernel;
> additionally, kern.securelevel, a set-only variable, would, when set,
> raise the knobs for x, y, and z. There would be no single kernel
> variable corresponding to kern.securelevel; it would not exist in any
> form that could be checked against.
> If we want to continue to support reading kern.securelevel, the read
> routine for it would have to take the minimum of all the relevant
> variables. I don't see that as a big deal.
that's exactly the bit i'm still trying to figure out -- it's obvious
that we keep it for keeping things as they are, and it's obvious we
get rid of it for having only the per-setting knobs.
however, if we choose to implement the hybrid scheme i described, how
should kern.securelevel be represented? can it?