[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Capabilities done right [diff against 2.3.1]

> > I just came up with a random thought ---- and I'd need to do more
> > investigating about the ELF format to make sure this is actually doable,
> > but I believe we can control the order in which constructurs get run,
> > yes?
> >
> > So why not simply put the code which drops the privileges in a
> > constructor which is engineered to be run first? If the way that
> > constructor is setup uses a stylized code can be easily found by a
> > setcap or checkcap program (i.e., give the constructor a standard name,
> > and store the capability restriction in a standard variable referenced
> > by the constructor), then you can get the ability to query/set the
> > capabilities, but it's done in such a way which doesn't require any
> > special kernel hacks to enable the feature.
> We also might do it in the dynamic linker, which is `the very first
> constructor'.


* there are static executables out there.

* I'm afraid that people around dynamic linker would simply tell me to
put it into kernel

* there are 2 different dynamic linkers (libc5 a glibc), but there's
only one kernel.

I think that it is better to put into kernel than to put into dynamic
loader; which is in turn better than having it nowhere at all.

The best software in life is free (not shareware)! Pavel
GCM d? s-: !g p?:+ au- a--@ w+ v- C++@ UL+++ L++ N++ E++ W--- M- Y- R+

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:9.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site