[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <468352EC.2080704@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:19:24 -0700
From: Andrew Morgan <morgan@...nel.org>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
CC: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Andrew Morgan <agm@...gle.com>, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...gle.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> Does that explain it?
>
> Yes, thanks, but then it still could come in handy to have fE be a full
> bitset, so the application gets some eff caps automatically, while
> others it has to manually set...
[We touched on this a number of emails back.]
If an application is capability aware, it can manipulate its own
capabilities and should have fE=0.
If an application is not capability aware, it needs to have *all* of its
capabilities enabled at exec() time. Otherwise, it won't work.
The only reason for having an fE bitmap is to allow a capability-aware
program (you really trust to do its privileged operations carefully) to
be lazy and get some of its capabilities raised for free. Perhaps you
can clarify why this is a desirable thing? :-)
Cheers
Andrew
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGg1LqQheEq9QabfIRAo3BAKCO8QrfcKBNqhfnn2BHp8O/qDkgXgCgleEl
xP7LZPU9Qn6AjqI3ZM3FZ+4=
=urmz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
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