[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] PAG support, try #2
Followup to:  <>
By author: Linus Torvalds <>
In newsgroup:
> And "pag_t" needs to be bigger, at least 64 bits. That, together with the
> "credential == 'list of PAG'" thing means that you can choose to do things
> like:
> - high bits zero, low bits match the UID (ie all users automatically get
> their own "private PAG", PAM just does the joining automatically)
> I personally _require_ this. End of discussion. Anything that doesn't
> allow for user-friendly automatic PAG's is, in my not-so-humble
> opinion, a total waste of time, and complete CRAP.
> Did I make my opinion clear enough? In other words, when I log in, I
> want to automatically get certain credentials, and I consider the
> log-in sequence to be sufficient security for those credentials.
> Anything that isn't designed for this is WRONG.
> - high bits "group pattern", low bits "GUID" - same thing as UID. Some
> PAG's are automatically associated with the _group_ ID of the person.
> When I log in, and I'm in the "engineering" group, I should
> automatically get access to the "engineering PAG".
> - users can controlledly join other PAGs as they wish (ie if you want to
> have credentials that are on top of the automatic user credentials, you
> have to join them explicitly, which migth require a stronger password
> or something)
> This allows for the "extra" credentials, and it also allows for users
> joining each others PAG's at least temporarily. It also allows things
> like extra groups outside of the traditional scope of groups (ie you
> can set up ad-hoc groups by creating a new PAG, and letting others join
> it).

Sounds like what you really want is capabilities, and not in the
setcap sense. I think this would be marvellous, myself, and I
completely agree that we need it to be user friendly.

To some degree, groups are also capabilities, but there is too much
rigamarole surrounding them. I also think evidence has shown that
it's too hard to add or remove group ownership; you basically need the
user to log out completely in order to add or drop the new ownerships.


<> at work, <> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
Architectures needed: ia64 m68k mips64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sh v850 x86-64
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.144 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site