![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu writes: > On Thu, 13 May 2004 18:20:10 PDT, Chris Wright said: > >> I think it still needs more work. Default behavoiur is changed, like >> Inheritble is full rather than clear, setpcap is enabled, etc. Also, >> why do you change from Posix the way exec() updates capabilities? Sure, >> there is no filesystem bits present, so this changes the calculation, >> but I'm not convinced it's as secure this way. At least with newcaps=0. > > The last time the "capabilities" thread reared its head a while ago, Andy made > a posting that pretty conclusively showed that the Posix way was totally b0rken > if you ever intended to support filesystem bits. So if you wanted to ever have > a snowball's chance of supporting something like: > > chcap cap_net_raw+ep /bin/ping Seems like you're not aware of: <http://www.olafdietsche.de/linux/capability/> This supports filesystem capabilities with the current (POSIX?) implementation. So, whatever Andy has shown, it has at least one counter evidence q.e.d. > 2) Toss all the filesystems capabilities support out the window. I agree to disagree ;-) 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 13:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||