[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17290.1262123182@localhost>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:46:22 -0500
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc: Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Michael Stone <michael@...top.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, David Lang <david@...g.hm>,
Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
"C. Scott Ananian" <cscott@...ott.net>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Bernie Innocenti <bernie@...ewiz.org>,
Mark Seaborn <mrs@...hic-beasts.com>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Samir Bellabes <sam@...ack.fr>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: RFC: disablenetwork facility. (v4)
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:27:22 CST, "Serge E. Hallyn" said:
> I think i disagree. A uid is just a uid (or should be). One day we may
> have a way for a factotum-style daemon to grant the ability to an unpriv
> task to setuid without CAP_SETUID. I think slingling uids and gids
> around that you already have access to should be fine.
Yes, but not doing the clear and obvious simple thing now for a "one day
we may have" consideration seems a poor engineering tradeoff.
Yes, slinging uids and gids around *would* be nice. But first we need a clear
plan for making /usr/bin/newgrp a shell builtin - once that happens, *then*
we can re-address this code. ;)
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists