[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061123214159.GA23800@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 15:41:59 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc: Chris Friedhoff <chris@...edhoff.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@...gai.gr.jp>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: security: introduce file caps
Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@...l.org):
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 13:12:03 +0100
> Chris Friedhoff <chris@...edhoff.org> wrote:
>
> > xinit respects capabilities (at least i guess), so when the system has
> > capability-support, the binary /usr/X11R6/bin/xinit neeeds the
> > capability cap_kill even when no capability extended attribute exists
> > for this binary.
> >
> > setfcaps cap_kill=ep /usr/X11R6/bin/xinit
> >
> > I documented this here:
> > http://www.friedhoff.org/fscaps.html#Xorg,%20xinit,%20xfce,%20kde
> >
> > and for more:
> > http://www.friedhoff.org/fscaps.html
> >
>
> Even when CONFIG_SECURITY_FS_CAPABILITIES=n?
No, the patch shouldn't change behavior when
CONFIG_SECURITY_FS_CAPABILITIES=n, though of course I see why it did. I
will send a fixed patch tomorrow or this weekend.
sorry,
-serge
-
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