lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Filesystem Capabilities in 2.6?
Date
"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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.305 / U:0.452 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site