lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Apr]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: caps in elf, next itteration (the hack get's bigger)
Date
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:31:14 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "David L. Parsley (lkml account)" <kparse@salem.k12.va.us>
>
> I'm curious, Dr. von Brand; have you considered stickybit + immutable? (as
> explained in my recent treatise to Richard ;-) It solves a lot of
> problems and gives us:
>
> That's actually the best alternative I've heard to date.
>
> I suppose you could simply make a capibility-enabled kernel ignore the
> setuid bit on setuid root executables that have no capabilities set. It
> still doesn't solve the problem which Stephen brought up which is that
> you might want an executable to be setuid to some userid (such as
> daemon) and yet still have capabilities. So the stickybit + immutable
> is probably the best alternative heard to date.
>
> - Ted
>
Since the main argument against capability metadata was nfs, and immutable
isn't exported over NFS, why not just make up a new Ext2 attribute for "check
capabilities"? This would also stop any weirdness for someone who happened to
set +ti for another reason. But anyway, how do other unix's which implement
capabilities do it? or are there even any other unixes which implement it?

Joseph Malicki

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.126 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site