Messages in this thread | | | From | Joseph Malicki <> | Subject | Re: caps in elf, next itteration (the hack get's bigger) | Date | Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:04:14 -0400 |
| |
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/
| |