[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1503301003460.6781@gentwo.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 10:05:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Aaron Jones <aaronmdjones@...il.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Markku Savela <msa@...h.iki.fi>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] capabilities: Ambient capabilities
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Would this suffice? It puts the CAP_SETPCAP limitation back to how it
> > was in my earlier patch.
> I really don't like that variant. CAP_SETPCAP is dangerous and so
> absurdly powerful that people really shouldn't hand it out.
According to
man 7 capabilities
CAP_SETPCAP is required to setup securebits.
This hides the functionality behind yet another stage of security and
obscures this ability somewhat more?
--
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