linux-kernel - Re: patch to make Linux capabilities into something useful (v 0.3.1)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20060906222731.GA10675@clipper.ens.fr>
Date:	Thu, 7 Sep 2006 00:27:31 +0200
From:	David Madore <david.madore@....fr>
To:	Linux Kernel mailing-list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: patch to make Linux capabilities into something useful (v 0.3.1)

On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 01:25:31PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> The fact that you're changing the inheritance rules is a bit scary, so
> I'm going to (and I hope others will) take some time to look it over.

Thanks!  I'd appreciate it.  Don't hesitate to ask me if some
decisions I made are unclear.

I was about to write to you, in fact, since I wrote a version of my
patch which merges with the one you made (an old version, though, I
suppose: I took it from <URL: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/15/294 >,
but I can try merging with more recent versions).  The point being to
show that my patch is not incompatible with yours: they are quite
complementary.  (The merged patch can be found in <URL:
ftp://quatramaran.ens.fr/pub/madore/newcaps/pre-alpha/ >.)

> In the meantime, so long as you're adding some new capabilities, how
> about also splitting up a few like CAP_SYS_ADMIN?  Have you looked into
> it and decided none are really separable, i.e. any subset leads to the
> ability to get any other subset?

I agree that splitting CAP_SYS_ADMIN might be worth while, but it
really looks like opening a worm can, so I didn't feel up to the
challenge there.  It might be a good idea to reserve some bits for
that possibility, however - I'm not sure how best to proceed.

> I'd recommend you split this patch into at least 3:
> 	1. move to 64-bit caps
> 	2. introduce your new caps
> 		(perhaps even one new cap per patch)
> 	3. introduce the new inheritance rules

Yes, that sounds like a good idea.  I'll do that.

-- 
     David A. Madore
    (david.madore@....fr,
     http://www.madore.org/~david/ )
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/