[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:0.042 / U:6.812 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site