Messages in this thread | | | From | (Peter Benie) | Subject | Re: Subject: Re: ext3 to include capabilities? | Date | Sat, 3 Apr 1999 12:51:06 +0100 |
| |
In article <199904030420.XAA13482@saturn.cs.uml.edu>, Albert D. Cahalan <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> wrote: >Santos Halpar writes: >> Your idea does limit the fs data needed to one bit, and that's >> something I don't mind. Using the suid bit as you suggest is >> bogus, though. The sticky bit would work if it were limited to root, >> but that's not an assumption that's workable in an NFS environment >> (correct me if I'm wrong).
Some NFS servers are configured not to serve files to root on the NFS client. Reading a 'setuid' binary can be done with the credentials of the unprivileged user so using the setuid bit should not be a problem.
>I prefer the setuid bit though, because it will be noticed by scripts >that look for suspicious executables. It is much less likely that a >script will notice an executable with the sticky bit set. (but this >is still better than a strange new file attribute) > >Well, which do people prefer? (sticky bit or setuid bit)
bash:~$ ls -Ll /usr/bin/emacs -rwxr-xr-t 2 root root 2383732 Jun 10 1998 /usr/bin/emacs*
Let's not overload the sticky bit :-).
Peter
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |