Re: [capabilities] Allow normal inheritance for a configurable set of capabilities

[Casey Schaufler]

On 2/2/2015 10:08 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
>> I'm game to participate in such an effort. The POSIX scheme
>> is workable, but given that it's 20 years old and hasn't
>> developed real traction it's hard to call it successful.
> Over the years we've several times discussed possible reasons for this
> and how to help.  I personally think it's two things:  1. lack of
> toolchain and fs support.  The fact that we cannot to this day enable
> ping using capabilities by default because of cpio, tar and non-xattr
> filesystems is disheartening.  2. It's hard for users and applications
> to know what caps they need.  yes the API is a bear to use, but we can
> hide that behind fancier libraries.  But using capabilities requires too
> much in-depth knowledge of precisely what caps you might need for
> whatever operations library may now do when you asked for something.

The fix for that is to a change to the audit system. If the audit system
reported the capabilities relevant to the decision you'd have what you
need. If you failed because you didn't have CAP_CHMOD or you succeeded
because you had CAP_SYS_ADMIN it should show up in the audit record.
Other systems have used this approach.

You could, of course, create a separate capability result log, and I
believe that Nokia had done something along those lines. I think that
adding it to the audit trail is a more rational approach.

--
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/