Re: [PATCH] capabilites, take 2

From: Chris Wright
Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 13:00:02 EST

* Andy Lutomirski (luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > This would be an excellent time to reconsider how capabilities
> > are assigned to bits. You're breaking things anyway; you might
> > as well do all the breaking at once. I want local-use bits so
> > that the print queue management access isn't by magic UID/GID.
> > We haven't escaped UID-as-priv if server apps and setuid apps
> > are still making UID-based access control decisions.
> How many bits? Or should it even be a bitmask?
> I'm thinking either 64 or 128 for kernel-defined caps and either
> a seperate 128 bits or more or just a list for local-defined.

Starts to look like the list of LSM callbacks. Making it bigger doesn't
help the simple issue, keep one lousy bit across execve(). All this
redesign seems wrong to do in 2.6.

Linux Security Modules
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at