On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Aha. Forgoet what I said. You
> are right - you want kernel to change _both_ bits at one request,
> which will work. Nice.
Yes, I was very happy when Eric suggested the immutable bit, since it
allows us to solve both the problem of older kernels plus utility
compatibility.
> > > Well - it changes something. You'll have to go out and tell everyone
> > > "stickybit + immutable is deadly combination". Many times.
> >
> > Yes, but consider _who_ will be the pioneers to first check the "CAP-ELF
> > support (experimental)" box in kernel configuration. The help should say
> > "Don't check this box without knowing what you're doing; it completely
> > changes the UNIX security model. For documentation, see..."
>
> Yes. And with my suid scheme, I could just compile it into kernel
> unconditionally, and would not need to tell anyone. See the
> difference?
But, as far as I can tell, setuid0 only helps us with binaries that were
formerly run full setuid-root, where the stickable solution secures
executables that formerly were just _run_ by root. I do _not_ want
binaries to inherit everything.
> Pavel
> --
> The best software in life is free (not shareware)! Pavel
> GCM d? s-: !g p?:+ au- a--@ w+ v- C++@ UL+++ L++ N++ E++ W--- M- Y- R+
>
cheers,
David
- --
David L. Parsley
Network Specialist
City of Salem Schools
-
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/