On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 10:44 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > So people have piggybacked complete inappropriate junk onto > CAP_SYS_RAWIO. Great. What the hell do we do now? We can't break > apart CAP_SYS_RAWIO because we don't have hierarchical capabilities. Yeah. Like I said, it's approximately useless. > We thus have a bunch of unpalatable choices, **all of which are wrong**. > > This, incidentally, is *exactly* the reason I object to > CAP_COMPROMISE_KERNEL as well... it describes a usage model, not a resource. Like I said, I'm not wed to a capability-based model. However, it does seem marginally more attractive than sprinkling if (!secure_boot) all over the place. If anyone has alternatives, this would be a great time to raise them. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org {.n++%ݶw{.n+{G{ayʇڙ,jfhz_(階ݢj"mG?&~iOzv^m ?I