Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:19:24 -0700 | From | Andrew Morgan <> | Subject | Re: implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch |
| |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >> Does that explain it? > > Yes, thanks, but then it still could come in handy to have fE be a full > bitset, so the application gets some eff caps automatically, while > others it has to manually set...
[We touched on this a number of emails back.]
If an application is capability aware, it can manipulate its own capabilities and should have fE=0.
If an application is not capability aware, it needs to have *all* of its capabilities enabled at exec() time. Otherwise, it won't work.
The only reason for having an fE bitmap is to allow a capability-aware program (you really trust to do its privileged operations carefully) to be lazy and get some of its capabilities raised for free. Perhaps you can clarify why this is a desirable thing? :-)
Cheers
Andrew -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGg1LqQheEq9QabfIRAo3BAKCO8QrfcKBNqhfnn2BHp8O/qDkgXgCgleEl xP7LZPU9Qn6AjqI3ZM3FZ+4= =urmz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - 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/
| |