Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:23:37 -0500 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] [PATCH] file posix capabilities |
| |
Quoting Albert Cahalan (acahalan@gmail.com): > Casey Schaufler writes: > >--- "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > >>+ bprm->cap_effective = fscaps[0]; > >>+ bprm->cap_inheritable = fscaps[1]; > >>+ bprm->cap_permitted = fscaps[2]; > > > >It does not appear that you're attempting > >to maintain the POSIX exec semantics for > >capability sets. (If you're doing it > >elsewhere in the code, nevermind) I don't > >know if this is intentional or not. > > Stop right there. No such POSIX semantics exist. > There is no POSIX standard for this. Out in the > wild there are numerous dangerously incompatible > ideas about this concept: > > a. SGI IRIX, and one draft of a failed POSIX proposal > b. Linux (half done), and a very different draft > c. DG-UX, which actually had a workable system > d. Solaris, which is workable and getting used > > My rant from 4 years ago mostly applies today. > http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/10/22/135 > > (yes, we have a lame SGI-style set of bits with > a set of equations that is not compatible) > > Something has changed though: people are actually > using this type of thing on Solaris. Probably the > sanest thing to do is to copy Solaris: equations, > tools, set of bits, #define names, API, etc. Just > let Sun be the standard, and semi-portable apps > will be able to use the feature. Cross-platform > admins will be very grateful for the consistency.
Does anyone have a security/solaris_prm.ko module they've been quietly working on or using?
(given the number of fscaps patches out there, it seems a reasonable question)
thanks, -serge - 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/
| |