Messages in this thread | | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Stack Smashing and no-exec | Date | Fri, 7 Aug 1998 18:45:31 -0700 (PDT) |
| |
> > of things are setuid root so they can bind a reserved port, for > > example. I'll be a lot happier when I can run named as a normal user! > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Would this be done, or would you have a user that has the > additional priv of being able to bind to that specific port? That is, > would capabilities be bound to a specific user like group membership is > now? Or would capabilities be bound to a group instead? Also, how would > these capabilities be defined? Would there be categories and/or any sort > of hierarchy to subcategorize the set of all possible capabilities, or > would it just be one long list of stuff, each capability standing alone?
No, capabilities as done so far are more like "partial-roots"; they are per-process, and you can either drop them or run a "set-cap" program, as far as I understand.
-hpa
- 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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |