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:0.440 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site