Re: file effective and process inheritable mask

Y2K (y2k@y2ker.com)
Sat, 24 Apr 1999 09:36:35 -0700 (PDT)

On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Ugh. Some people have very old executables. It is never really safe
> to make random old privileged executables crash.
Well I quess that you should have to use cap_from_text() which is in the
standard add a few fake caps that really are groups of other real caps.
Then if you kill CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH later on you can expand it behind the
scenes later by just making it a fake cap that really is a set of real
caps.
> > Define a few fatter profiles like power, normal, net_power,net_normal,
> > file_power, file_normal, reserved_power, reserved_normal, power_admin
> That won't solve the problem, but it is a nice idea anyway.
Yes I guess you have to resolve some things at run time.
> > Yes I what to strengthen the formula not weaken it.
> > pP'= (fP & x) | (fI & pI & pP)
> > for proper files x can be ~0 otherwise 0 .
> Your pP' fits into my equation as d_pP. (but it is broken)
you think it is broken cause I think pI and fI should be strictly a
limiting factor they should never cause a child process to gain caps the
parent never had.
> Notice that my equation is _not_ the pP equation from the draft.
> The draft produces d_pP, and o_pP is something lenient.
> They are combined using a configurable mask.
I don't want lenient, I want more strictness on how caps are gained
ie. through fP *only* .

--
Warning when I mention capabilites I mean "soiled" capabilities not "pure".
Any caps I mention are *derived* from a withdrawn draft posix document.




-
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/