linux-kernel - Re: Request change in behaviour of capability inheritance.

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: <887.65866.qm@web36605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 8 Mar 2007 08:24:38 -0800 (PST)
From:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:	rgarcia@...asoft.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Request change in behaviour of capability inheritance.

--- rgarcia@...asoft.com wrote:

> I think that the current behaviour of capability
> inheritance across exec()
> is not optimal.
> 
> The current behaviour consists in all effective and
> permitted capabilities
> are cleared across a exec(). This is because it
> seems to be intended that
> in the future the executable files have a set of
> "allowed" and "forced"
> capabilities.

File based capabilities are the same
effective, permitted, and inheritable
sets that the process has. Unless the
thinking has shifted over the last couple
weeks (it happens from time to time)
the inheritable set is what you're
missing.

Casey Schaufler
casey@...aufler-ca.com
-
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/