Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:09:58 +0000 | From | Andy Spencer <> | Subject | Re: [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] | |