[lkml]   [1999]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Subject: Re: ext3 to include capabilities?
In article <>,
Albert D. Cahalan <> wrote:
>Santos Halpar writes:
>> Your idea does limit the fs data needed to one bit, and that's
>> something I don't mind. Using the suid bit as you suggest is
>> bogus, though. The sticky bit would work if it were limited to root,
>> but that's not an assumption that's workable in an NFS environment
>> (correct me if I'm wrong).

Some NFS servers are configured not to serve files to root on the NFS
client. Reading a 'setuid' binary can be done with the credentials of
the unprivileged user so using the setuid bit should not be a problem.

>I prefer the setuid bit though, because it will be noticed by scripts
>that look for suspicious executables. It is much less likely that a
>script will notice an executable with the sticky bit set. (but this
>is still better than a strange new file attribute)
>Well, which do people prefer? (sticky bit or setuid bit)

bash:~$ ls -Ll /usr/bin/emacs
-rwxr-xr-t 2 root root 2383732 Jun 10 1998 /usr/bin/emacs*

Let's not overload the sticky bit :-).


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:0.070 / U:35.968 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site