[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Capabilities done right [diff against 2.3.1]
Linus Torvalds writes:
> On Sun, 16 May 1999, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:

>> You want to allow shellscripts with special powers?!?!?
> I may want to _strip_ shellscripts of power.

I suppose you intend to turn normal user abilities into default
capabilities. (the ability to write to a writable file...)

I think that has the same problem, but nevermind.

It is also dangerous to add default capabilities because apps may drop
unknown capabilities, causing failure at some critical point.

> I may want to give special power to certain Javascripts (assuming I'd ever
> trust the java engine itself). I do _not_ consider it acceptable to give
> all powers to the java interpreter in general, but I _do_ consider it
> acceptable to give special capabilities to certain scripts.

When the interpreter and script both have capabilities marked...?

> The ELF notes way doesn't allow that.

You give capabilities to your trusted interpreter.
It handles the issue according to whatever policy is needed.

> Do you start to see a pattern here now? It's not about ELF. It's about
> everything ELSE. It's about doing something right, and not getting stuck
> with a bad decision forever.

You only get stuck with the existance of the mechanism, which isn't
too bad. The mechanism may be needed anyway for non-native filesystems.

Nothing prevents the creation of an alternate system that overrides the
ELF header. (so there is no need to even look at the ELF notes in that case)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.098 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site