linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] capabilities: introduce per-process capability bounding set (v10)

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: <47520A45.7000800@kaigai.gr.jp>
Date:	Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:28:37 +0900
From:	KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@...gai.gr.jp>
To:	serge@...lyn.com
CC:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morgan <morgan@...nel.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ch.ncsc.mil>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] capabilities: introduce per-process capability	bounding
 set (v10)

Serge,

> Is there any reason not to have a separate /etc/login.capbounds
> config file, though, so the account can still have a full name?
> Did you only use that for convenience of proof of concept, or
> is there another reason?

passwd(5) says the fifth field is optional and only used for
informational purpose (like ulimit, umask).

However, using any other separate config file is conservative
and better. One candidate is "/etc/security/capability.conf"
defined as the config file of pam_cap.

Thanks,
-- 
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@...gai.gr.jp>
--
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/