[lkml]   [2004]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] capabilites, take 2
Stephen Smalley wrote:

> On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 11:57, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>Thanks -- turning brain back on, SELinux is obviously better than any
>>fine-grained capability scheme I can imagine.
>>So unless anyone convinces me you're wrong, I'll stick with just
>>fixing up capabilities to work without making them finer-grained.
> Great, thanks. Fixing capabilities to work is definitely useful and
> desirable. Significantly expanding them in any manner is a poor use of
> limited resources, IMHO; I'd much rather see people work on applying
> SELinux to the problem and solving it more effectively for the future.

Does this mean I should trash my 'maximum' mask?

(I like 'cap -c = sftp-server' so it can't try to run setuid/fP apps.)
OTOH, since SELinux accomplishes this better, it may not be worth the


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 14:03    [W:0.077 / U:6.488 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site