Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: RFC: disablenetwork facility. (v4) | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:46:22 -0500 |
| |
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:27:22 CST, "Serge E. Hallyn" said: > I think i disagree. A uid is just a uid (or should be). One day we may > have a way for a factotum-style daemon to grant the ability to an unpriv > task to setuid without CAP_SETUID. I think slingling uids and gids > around that you already have access to should be fine.
Yes, but not doing the clear and obvious simple thing now for a "one day we may have" consideration seems a poor engineering tradeoff.
Yes, slinging uids and gids around *would* be nice. But first we need a clear plan for making /usr/bin/newgrp a shell builtin - once that happens, *then* we can re-address this code. ;) [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |