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

On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> 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.


- --
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
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.071 / U:35.564 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site