lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Capabilities done right [diff against 2.3.1]
Date
Linus Torvalds writes:
> On Sun, 16 May 1999, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:

>> You want to allow shellscripts with special powers?!?!?
>
> I may want to _strip_ shellscripts of power.

I suppose you intend to turn normal user abilities into default
capabilities. (the ability to write to a writable file...)

I think that has the same problem, but nevermind.

It is also dangerous to add default capabilities because apps may drop
unknown capabilities, causing failure at some critical point.

> I may want to give special power to certain Javascripts (assuming I'd ever
> trust the java engine itself). I do _not_ consider it acceptable to give
> all powers to the java interpreter in general, but I _do_ consider it
> acceptable to give special capabilities to certain scripts.

When the interpreter and script both have capabilities marked...?

> The ELF notes way doesn't allow that.

You give capabilities to your trusted interpreter.
It handles the issue according to whatever policy is needed.

> Do you start to see a pattern here now? It's not about ELF. It's about
> everything ELSE. It's about doing something right, and not getting stuck
> with a bad decision forever.

You only get stuck with the existance of the mechanism, which isn't
too bad. The mechanism may be needed anyway for non-native filesystems.

Nothing prevents the creation of an alternate system that overrides the
ELF header. (so there is no need to even look at the ELF notes in that case)

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.081 / U:1.560 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site