[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:0.018 / U:8.200 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site