[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710231117260.16684@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:18:32 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To: "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@...ian.org>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
Thomas Fricaccia <thomas_fricacci@...oo.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Subject: Re: LSM conversion to static interface
On Oct 23 2007 11:14, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>> So, we give caps to the subadmins (which is IMHO a natural task),
>> and then, as per LSM design (wonder where that is written) deny
>> some of the rights that the capabilities raised for subadmins grant,
>> because that is obviously too much.
>
> Nothing wrong. I only said that it was against (IIRC) the
> principle of LSM in kernel (we should only remove capacities).
Leave my capacitance alone! :)
[i hope you get the joke]
Anyway - I see your point. But what would give the user the capabilities
in the first place, if not a security module that implements this-and-that
capability-raising scheme?
-
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