lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] Privilege dropping security module
> As a result, in practice this interface to dpriv probably means that
> most implemented policies will be more permissive than
> intended/desired. I consider that a defect in the design of the
> specification language. It seems like it would be preferable to have
> a specification language that better facilitates secure use of dpriv.

What would you suggest as a better specification language? Would it be
sufficient to have recursive and non recursive variants for masking
permissions?

There's an implementation problem with using recursive permissions and
expanding * in userspace as well. If the user allows access to `foo' and
denies access to `foo/*', and later creates new entry of `foo/bar', the
new entry would have access allowed, which would probably not reflect
the users intent.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-26 23:13    [W:0.050 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site