lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: inheritable set [was Re: caps in elf headers: use the sticky bit!]
    Hi,

    On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
    [snip]
    > One could get even finer-grained control, e.g. "can create files which are
    > named `X.lock' in a specified directory, where `X' is an existing file owned
    > by the uid of the process with the capability", but this is probably not a
    > good idea because it requires encoding that kind of restriction into the
    > kernel. Then again, a mechanism for loading byte-code capability definitions
    > --- itself controlled by a "permanent" capability --- could prove useful for
    > this level of control.

    The only extension to this I've been considering is 'legal ports' where
    we can have more fine-grained control over which ports a process can
    listen on. I was thinking either a single port or a port range.

    cheers,
    David

    - --
    David L. Parsley
    Network Specialist
    City of Salem Schools


    -
    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:0.021 / U:0.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site