Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sun, 16 May 1999 02:25:56 -0400 (EDT) | | From | "Albert D. Cahalan" <> | | Subject | Re: Capabilities done right [diff against 2.3.1] |
| |
Linus Torvalds writes: > On Fri, 14 May 1999, Pavel Machek wrote: > >> Next try with capabilities, this time against 2.3.1. Patch is completely >> safe and should significantly enhance system security. It is completely >> backward compatible: ie. no semantics change. Capabilities are >> implemented using elf notes (and this version parses notes correctly). >> Software exists for adding capabilities at runtime, so you don't even >> require a recompile. > > I'm not entirely convinced. The thing with ELF notes is that they only > work with ELF. That may sound obvious, and it is, but it makes me wonder > whether it's the right way at all. > > I suspect that it would be cleaner to have capabilities be a name-space > issue rather than an inode issue. For example, the one thing I've always > wanted to do with symlinks is to have symlinks that can change the > privileges of the lookup - it's complex and maybe not a good idea, but > it's a more intriguing concept and works with shellscripts and other > systems where you can't add ELF notes..
You want to allow shellscripts with special powers?!?!?
If so, you might as well start by allowing setuid shell scripts. That was a massive security hole last I heard.
Considering other formats: a.out is obsolete and newer formats will not be less powerful than ELF.
- 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/
|  |