Re: [PATCH] capabilites, take 2

[Andy Lutomirski]

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.

--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/