lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Capabilities
Date
From
Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> said:

[...]

> But you did not understand me well. I wanted to keep allowed bits in
> filesystem and keep special semantics of uid 0.

Why? Either UID 0 has all capabilities (is superuser, capabilities don't
matter much) or you use capabilities (in which case it may as well be a
regular user)

> > The problem with making a program setuid root, and then trusting
> > the program to drop the capabilities, is exactly that. You have to

> No. Because I would keep allowed set in filesystem. So if it is setuid
> 0 but allowed set is NET_BIND_LOW, I *know* that it will drop all but
> NET_BIND_LOW. You see?

Why does it have to belong to root then? Better belong to named (for DNS)
or mail (for MTA) or http (for HTTP), etc.

This idea is just an artifact of the elfcap kludge.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513

-
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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans