Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 14 May 2004 09:18:43 -0700 | | From | Andy Lutomirski <> | | Subject | Re: [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 effort.
--Andy
- 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/
|  |