Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Lutomirski <> | Date | Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:56:41 -0800 | Subject | Re: [capabilities] Allow normal inheritance for a configurable set of capabilities |
| |
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote: > On Fri 2015-02-27 12:15:15, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote: >> > On Wed 2015-02-25 17:59:04, Christoph Lameter wrote: >> >> On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Pavel Machek wrote: >> >> >> >> > One solution is to put capabilities into the elf executable. I believe >> >> > there was patch for that. That means you don't need to add capability >> >> > support into filesystems... >> >> >> >> Ummm... So I can just get any caps by modifying the ELF header? >> >> Looking at the docs No, it just drops caps so binaries must be >> >> setsuid. >> > >> > exactly. Normal apps are not currently allowed to receive >> > capabilities, because they may not be ready for them. >> > >> > So add an elf note marking what capabilities it can deal with. >> > No need for setuid if caller has the capabilities already. >> >> We'd need extremely broad coverage for this to be useful because of >> shells, pipelines, scripts, etc. We'd need bash, env, python, etc. > > Well.. capabilities for scripts will be "fun" even when you have > proper filesystem support. I'd say that is separate problem... (and > yes, it would have to be solved.)
To me, however, the whole point of this thread is that you shouldn't need filesystem support at all. If I have CAP_WHATEVER, I tell the kernel that I want my children to have CAP_WHATEVER in their permitted and effective sets, and I don't try to run a setuid or fP != 0 program, then it should just work.
The insertion of scripts in the way shouldn't matter.
--Andy
> > -- > (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek > (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC
| |