lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: capabilities patch (v 0.1)
    On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 05:37:56AM +0000, Chris Wright wrote:
    > * David Madore (david.madore@ens.fr) wrote:
    > > * Second, a much more extensive change, the patch introduces a third
    > > set of capabilities for every process, the "bounding" set. Normally
    >
    > this is not a good idea. don't add more sets.

    Could you elaborate? Why is adding sets bad? From what I read of the
    June 2000 discussions on the linux-privs-discuss mailing-list (<URL:
    http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=25120&max_rows=25&style=flat&viewmonth=200006
    >), a rather large consensus had formed around the idea that some
    kind of bounding set was a useful idea (as a matter of fact, the
    sendmail problem came essentially from the fact that some people
    wanted an inheritable set and other people wanted a bounding set, and
    the code was some mixture of the two); and it had been argued
    convincincly that it could be made POSIX compliant if that is the
    issue. Plus, Solaris privileges also come in four sets.

    If it's compatibility you're worried about, it seems to me that the
    user interface can be made so that it will still work with the old
    libcap and merely ignore the bounding set. So full binary
    compatibility will be achieved, at least on the user level.

    Finally, if it's a matter of kernel policy, I seem to understand that
    my patch has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being accepted in the
    mainstream kernel (I mean, it's not as though this were new: patches
    to make capabilities work have been available ever since the sendmail
    exploit, and in five years they haven't ever been accepted, so I
    suppose there's a reason to this), so adding a fourth set of
    capabilities of my own initiative isn't going to change a thing there.

    So what's the problem?

    > if you really want to
    > work on this i'll give you all the patches that have been done thus far,
    > plus a set of tests that look at all the execve, ptrace, setuid type of
    > corner cases.

    Yes, I'm very interested in the test suite.

    --
    David A. Madore
    (david.madore@ens.fr,
    http://www.madore.org/~david/ )
    -
    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: 2005-08-09 22:39    [W:0.039 / U:0.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site