Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 May 2004 11:07:52 -0700 | From | Chris Wright <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] capabilites, take 2 |
| |
* Andy Lutomirski (luto@stanford.edu) wrote: > Stephen Smalley wrote: > > On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 11:57, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > Thanks -- turning brain back on, SELinux is obviously better than any > > > fine-grained capability scheme I can imagine. > > > > > > So unless anyone convinces me you're wrong, I'll stick with just > > > fixing up capabilities to work without making them finer-grained. > > > > Great, thanks. Fixing capabilities to work is definitely useful and > > desirable. Significantly expanding them in any manner is a poor use of > > limited resources, IMHO; I'd much rather see people work on applying > > SELinux to the problem and solving it more effectively for the future. > > Does this mean I should trash my 'maximum' mask? > > (I like 'cap -c = sftp-server' so it can't try to run setuid/fP apps.) > OTOH, since SELinux accomplishes this better, it may not be worth the > effort.
Let's just get back to the simplest task. Allow execve() to do smth. reasonable with capabilities.
thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net - 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/
| |