[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200802040254.50444.ismail@pardus.org.tr>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 02:54:50 +0200
From: Ismail Dönmez <ismail@...dus.org.tr>
To: "Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Security Modules List
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits
At Monday 04 February 2008 around 02:49:29 Andrew G. Morgan wrote:
> Another way to put this is that there needs to be some application code
> and documentation available to guide the way... Adding such things to
> the example programs in libcap2 helped me find the 24-rc2 CAP_SETPCAP
> bug and until I've gone through the task of testing all the bits
> together, I won't believe the kernel support is anything other than
> 'experimental'.
>
> Other folk are actively advocating and exploring this model. For
> example, Chris Friedhoff has a page here that describes some first
> steps for using filesystem capabilities:
>
> ~ http://www.friedhoff.org/posixfilecaps.html
I already know and enjoy File system base capabilities thanks to Chris'
website and Serge's developerWorks article.
What I meant to ask was what does "per-process securebits" brings as extra.
FWIW in Pardus 2008 we'll enable Posix file capabilities by default so people
could "harden" their setups.
Regards,
ismail
--
Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again.
--
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