[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0609110807250.14570@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:10:17 +0200 (MEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To: David Madore <david.madore@....fr>
cc: Joshua Brindle <method@...too.org>,
Linux Kernel mailing-list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM mailing-list <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] security: capabilities patch (version 0.4.4), part
3/4: introduce new capabilities
>> To expand on this a little, some of the capabilities you are looking to
>> add are of very little if any use without being able to specify objects.
>> For example, CAP_REG_OPEN is whether the process can open any file
>> instead of specific ones. How many applications open no files whatsoever
>> in practice? Even if there are some as soon as they change and need to
>> open a file they'll need this capability and will be able to open any.
>> CAP_REG_WRITE has the same problem. For a description of why
>> CAP_REG_EXEC is meaningless see the digsig thread on the LSM list from
>> earlier this year.
>
>CAP_REG_OPEN and CAP_REG_EXEC might be useful only for demonstration
>purposes, but I've *often* wished I could run a program without
You cannot reasonable run a program without CAP_REG_OPEN, because
ld.so, libc.so and libdl.so all may load a ton of required files
underneath you.
$ strace -e open ls 2>&1 >/dev/null | grep open | wc -l
36
Jan Engelhardt
--
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists