[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190829171922.hkuceiurscsxk5jq@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 10:19:24 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team <kernel-team@...com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf, capabilities: introduce CAP_BPF
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:34:34AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> As the above seems to favor the idea of CAP_TRACING allowing write
> access to tracefs, should we have a CAP_TRACING_RO for just read access
> and limited perf abilities?
read only vs writeable is an attribute of the file system.
Bringing such things into caps seem wrong to me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists