Messages in this thread | | | From | Olaf Dietsche <olaf.dietsche#> | Subject | Re: Filesystem Capabilities in 2.6? | Date | Sat, 02 Nov 2002 14:38:56 +0100 |
| |
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> writes:
> Ugh. Personally, as I've said, I'm not convinced filesystem > capabilities is worth it, providing the illusion of security --- and
Like ACL? SCNR :-)
> probably will make most systems more insecure because most system > administrators won't be able to deal with fs capabilties competently.
I still don't get it. How is this different from suid root. The worst I can imagine is an admin doing chcap all+eip, which is no different from doing a chown root; chmod u+s.
> HOWEVER, if we're going to do it, Olaf's patches is really not the way > to do it. If we're going to do it at all, the right way to do it is > via extended attributes. Using a sparse file to store capabilities > indexed by inode numbers is a bad idea; it will break if the user uses > resize2fs on an ext2/3 filesystem, for example.
Dragging yet another one out of you. This is a pretty strong argument against my implementation. Any other hints?
Regards, Olaf. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |