lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Posix capabilities
From
Date
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:02:25PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>> With capabilities the kernel ensures that
>> applications cannot exceed their capabilities.

Which is a _big_ plus.

> as compared
> to having every single individual administrator have make this
> determination by his or herself.

I don't see this. It's a distribution issue. There will be
administrators, who want to do it on their own, but those will be a
minority.

> Each additional thing which the system administrator has to do, is an
> additional thing that he/she can *get* *wrong*. System administators
> aren't stupid, just over-loaded, and often asked to administer
> something that's too complicated.

Once the distributions have taken care of this, there's nothing too
complicated left.

> Millions and millions of knobs and dials are not necessarily a good
> thing. If there is basically only one correct answer for how the
> knobs can be set up, sure, you can have a complex database for
> applications to determine what sort of capability masks they should
> have, and you can run that database against your database every night
> (otherwise, you might miss someone quietly modifying one or two
> capability masks to leave him/herself a back door).
>
> But why go through all that effort?

Because it's easier, than patching millions and millions of programs?

Regards, Olaf.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans