lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Capabilities
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 tytso@valinux.com wrote:

[snip]
> Well, there's a trade off here. If you could have 32 bits basically
> almost right away, and more would take longer, which would you choose?
> Also, keep in mind that more bits is not necessarily good. There is a
> *huge* complexity cost in maintaining capabilities. People have enough
> trouble keeping track of the 12 bits of permissions on a per file
> basis. This adds one or two orders of magnitude of more bits for every
> executable.
[snip]

Figured I peep in here. I'm running a system that makes heavy use of caps.
Every daemon is in a chroot jail, every processes that needs more then
normal user access, uses capabilities. I've even globally droped some caps
(the rawio/blockdevice cap provided by a patch).

I'm very familar with 'the' unix kernel, and lowlevel programming. But
even with that knoweldge it was often difficult getting the caps right.
Complexity = security holes.

If we go to many more caps, it will be virtually impossible for anyone but
gurus to safely use them, and since it's a platform specific thing, I
don't know how many applications will use them out of the box.

It might be useful for someone to instrument strace so that it could tell
you what caps a bin is using.




-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:56    [W:0.754 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site