Re: [PATCH 3/4] security: capabilities patch (version 0.4.4), part3/4: introduce new capabilities

[Joshua Brindle]

On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 14:04 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > The benefits of this are so minuscule and the cost is so high if you are 
> > > > ever to use it that it simply won't happen..
> > > 
> > > I'm withdrawing that patch anyway, in favor of a LSM-style approach,
> > > the "cuppabilities" module (cf. the patch I posted a couple of hours
> > > ago with that word in the title, and I'll be posting a new version in
> > > a day or so, or cf. <URL:
> > > http://www.madore.org/~david/linux/cuppabilities/
> > >  >).  In this case, the relative cost will be lower since the
> > > security_ops->inode_permission() hook is called no matter what.
> > > 
> > 
> > You misunderstand. I don't mean the performance cost is high, I mean the
> > cost of an application to actually be able to run without open() (what I
> > was saying before, static built, no glibc, no conf files, no name
> > lookups, etc). I never see this being used in the real world because of
> > the extreme limitations.
> 
> It is already being used. See config_seccomp.

Where are the users?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/