Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Apr 1999 19:46:29 +0200 (CEST) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Capabilities, this time in elf section |
| |
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Ernest JW ter Kuile wrote:
> > being able to set the setuid root bit is [should be?] a capability itself, > > root does not ... > > no it isn't ! > > that bit isn't a setuid *root* bit at all if the owner of the file isn't > root. > anybody should still be able to set that bit if he want. the capability > you mean is the chown/grp capability.
yes, this is what i ment by:
> > This breaks symmetry a little bit but i dont think it's a problem.)
> *don't* change the meaning of the setuid bit please.
i dont think this is a problem. In the future setuid root will no more have it's old meaning. So i can see no problem with changing _some_ of the semantics. At some point there will be no extra rights attached to uid 0.
> you can however remove root if there is somwhere a database of personal > capabilities per user (ala passwd, shadow, etc...), then by setting > setuid to > any user, a binary could get a subset (or all) of *that* users > capabilities and no more.
i never said that setuid _nonroot_ should change. We obviously need it for things like mail delivery, it's a feature. What i proposed was to handle setuid root (and only setuid root) slightly differently. [since setuid root is exactly the thing we want to redesign/replace by capabilities] Do you see my point?
-- mingo
- 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/
| |