[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150309143653.GA29594@mail.hallyn.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:36:53 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Aaron Jones <aaronmdjones@...il.com>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>,
Markku Savela <msa@...h.iki.fi>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] capabilities: Ambient capability set V2
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 07:05:24AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>
> > > The ancestor here is ambient_test and when it is run pI will not be set
> > > despite the cap setting.
> >
> > ambient_test is supposed to set it.
>
> I thought the setcap +i would do it.
>
> So the setcap and setting of the file inheritance bits has no effect on
> pI? When the process starts pI is off despite fI being set?
Correct, pI must be set through capset(). Again, x in fI is saying
that the certain trusted users may have x in pP when they run the
binary; x in pi means that the users may have x in pP when they run
certain files. Other users running the file won't have x in pP, and
the special user running other files won't have x in pP.
--
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