[lkml]   [1999]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: capabilities in elf headers, (my) final (and shortest) iteration
    Hi Brandon.

    >>> Not that I really care one way or the other about capabilities,
    >>> just wondering if anyone has really thought this through before
    >>> posting "it's up to the interpreter"

    >> {Shrug} Perhaps somebody can suggest some way that capabilities
    >> can have meaning for a script, any script if it comes to that?

    > My inclination is that if a script needs capabilities, you
    > should use a wrapper executable. I don't like setuid scripts, I
    > don't like set-capability scripts for the same reason.

    I've always agreed with the BugTrax comment I saw aeons ago that
    pointed out that scripts are subject to so many security holes that
    they should NEVER be given extra facilities. For this reason, I have
    no sympathy at all with any argument for giving extra rights to
    scripts in ANY circumstances, and certainly I've yet to meet a valid
    reason for doing so...

    Best wishes from Riley.

    | There is something frustrating about the quality and speed of Linux |
    | development, ie., the quality is too high and the speed is too high, |
    | in other words, I can implement this XXXX feature, but I bet someone |
    | else has already done so and is just about to release their patch. |

    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:0.020 / U:4.060 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site