Re: caps in elf, next itteration (the hack get's bigger)

Jonathan Walther (krooger@debian.org)
Fri, 9 Apr 1999 16:19:36 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, David L. Parsley (lkml account) wrote:
> rather than the exception. Scripts will have to wait for FS support, and
> setuid scripts will break with all the standard tools + nfs. I did forget

Eh? How do you figure?

> > Another thing: with capabilities set in the filesystem, you don't have to
> > muck with the suid semantics. Don't mess with this! The meaning of
> > suid is all settled, don't go yanking it out from under our feet!
> The meaning of 'setuid 0' is outdated, this is a better way to use it.

No! I want backwards compatibility and easy portability and POSIX compliance
in my code. Im not going to break POSIX just for Linux sake. Linux is not
the only Unix platform I code on! With capabilities done in the FS, we have
no NEED to change the meaning of suid, so we SHOULDNT.

Jonathan Walther *ifItAin'tBrokeDon'tFixIt*
Digital Video Broadcasting Systems
http://216.100.231.12 (requires netscape)

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