lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] security: capabilities patch (version 0.4.4), part 3/4: introduce new capabilities
    From
    Date
    On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 14:04 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
    > Hi!
    >
    > > > > The benefits of this are so minuscule and the cost is so high if you are
    > > > > ever to use it that it simply won't happen..
    > > >
    > > > I'm withdrawing that patch anyway, in favor of a LSM-style approach,
    > > > the "cuppabilities" module (cf. the patch I posted a couple of hours
    > > > ago with that word in the title, and I'll be posting a new version in
    > > > a day or so, or cf. <URL:
    > > > http://www.madore.org/~david/linux/cuppabilities/
    > > > >). In this case, the relative cost will be lower since the
    > > > security_ops->inode_permission() hook is called no matter what.
    > > >
    > >
    > > You misunderstand. I don't mean the performance cost is high, I mean the
    > > cost of an application to actually be able to run without open() (what I
    > > was saying before, static built, no glibc, no conf files, no name
    > > lookups, etc). I never see this being used in the real world because of
    > > the extreme limitations.
    >
    > It is already being used. See config_seccomp.

    Where are the users?

    -
    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: 2006-09-18 14:13    [W:3.484 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site