[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <511C1325.5060601@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:26:45 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
CC: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Lock down MSR writing in secure boot
On 02/13/2013 09:51 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>
> You can't add a new capability where there is an existing capability
> that can be remotely argued to be appropriate.
>
> If you tried to "fix" CAP_SYS_RAWIO and/or CAP_SYS_ADMIN you'd end
> up with hundreds of capabilities.
>
> Your particular problem is *not* so important that you get a
> capability all to yourself.
>
{facepalm}
This is exactly the kind of thinking which has led to the capability
system being so bloody useless.
Capabilities need to be associated with resources, not use cases.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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