[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:0.022 / U:1.784 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site