Re: [PATCH] capabilites, take 2

From: Chris Wright
Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 13:09:24 EST

* Andy Lutomirski (luto@xxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 11:57, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > Thanks -- turning brain back on, SELinux is obviously better than any
> > > fine-grained capability scheme I can imagine.
> > >
> > > So unless anyone convinces me you're wrong, I'll stick with just
> > > fixing up capabilities to work without making them finer-grained.
> >
> > Great, thanks. Fixing capabilities to work is definitely useful and
> > desirable. Significantly expanding them in any manner is a poor use of
> > limited resources, IMHO; I'd much rather see people work on applying
> > SELinux to the problem and solving it more effectively for the future.
> Does this mean I should trash my 'maximum' mask?
> (I like 'cap -c = sftp-server' so it can't try to run setuid/fP apps.)
> OTOH, since SELinux accomplishes this better, it may not be worth the
> effort.

Let's just get back to the simplest task. Allow execve() to do smth.
reasonable with capabilities.

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