Re: capabilitiescompute_cred

[Andy Lutomirski]

Stephen Smalley wrote:

> On Fri, 2004-04-02 at 15:21, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > I agree in principle, but it would still be nice to have a simple way to 
> > have useful capabilities without setting up a MAC system.  I don't see a 
> > capabilities fix adding any significant amount of code; it just takes 
> > some effort to get it right.
>
>
> I'm not opposed to making the existing capability logic more useable; I
> just think that capabilities will ultimately be superseded by TE.
>  
>
> > You can find my attempts to get it right in the 
> > linux-kernel archives, and I'll probably try to get something into 2.7 
> > when it forks.  With or without MAC, having a functioning capability 
> > system wouldn't hurt security.
>
>
> Does revising the capability logic need to wait on 2.7?  Have you
> changed the logic significantly since the last patch you posted to lkml?

I don't _think_ it's changed, but I'll double-check that in a few days 
(I'm out of town).  I'll also rediff my patch.  Should it be a config 
option?

Anyway, I have no strong objection to seeing a change in 2.6 -- there's 
just some risk that it could break something that depends on the current 
(broken, undocumented) behavior.

Andrew:  would you be willing to put a capabilities fix into -mm?

--Andy
-
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/