Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] capabilites, take 2 | From | Olaf Dietsche <> | Date | Fri, 14 May 2004 08:39:12 +0200 |
| |
Andy Lutomirski <luto@myrealbox.com> writes:
> I'm not convinced that Posix's version makes any sense. Also, there are > apparently a number of drafts around which disagree on what the right > rules are. (My copy, for example, matches the old rules exactly, but > the old rules caused the sendmail problem.)
Don't confuse POSIX _semantics_ with implementation _bugs_.
> And, under Posix, what does > the inheritable mask mean, anyway? > > Also, I don't find the posix rules to be useful (why is there an > inheritable mask if all it does is to cause caps to be dropped on > exec, when the user could just manually drop them?).
You can use the inheritable set, if you want to give capabilities to a process when it's started by an already priviledged parent (e.g. a root process), but not when it's started by a regular user.
See <http://www.olafdietsche.de/linux/capability/> for an example.
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/
| |