From: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@myrealbox.com>
Cc: Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sourceforge.net>,
linux-kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
chrisw@osdl.org, olaf+list.linux-kernel@olafdietsche.de,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] capabilites, take 2
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:58:01 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040514105801.S21045@build.pdx.osdl.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40A4DD7B.6070208@myrealbox.com>; from luto@myrealbox.com on Fri, May 14, 2004 at 07:53:47AM -0700
* Andy Lutomirski (luto@myrealbox.com) wrote:
> > This would be an excellent time to reconsider how capabilities
> > are assigned to bits. You're breaking things anyway; you might
> > as well do all the breaking at once. I want local-use bits so
> > that the print queue management access isn't by magic UID/GID.
> > We haven't escaped UID-as-priv if server apps and setuid apps
> > are still making UID-based access control decisions.
>
> How many bits? Or should it even be a bitmask?
>
> I'm thinking either 64 or 128 for kernel-defined caps and either
> a seperate 128 bits or more or just a list for local-defined.
Starts to look like the list of LSM callbacks. Making it bigger doesn't
help the simple issue, keep one lousy bit across execve(). All this
redesign seems wrong to do in 2.6.
thanks,
-chris
--
Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-14 17:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-05-14 12:03 Albert Cahalan
2004-05-14 14:53 ` Andy Lutomirski
2004-05-14 17:58 ` Chris Wright [this message]
2004-05-14 15:21 ` Stephen Smalley
2004-05-14 15:19 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-05-14 18:06 ` Stephen Smalley
2004-05-14 17:32 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-05-14 21:11 ` Chris Wright
2004-05-14 19:32 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-05-14 18:00 ` Chris Wright
2004-05-14 17:48 ` Chris Wright
[not found] <fa.dt4cg55.jnqvr5@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.mu5rj3d.24gtbp@ifi.uio.no>
2004-05-14 15:57 ` Andy Lutomirski
2004-05-14 16:01 ` Stephen Smalley
2004-05-14 16:18 ` Andy Lutomirski
2004-05-14 16:37 ` Stephen Smalley
2004-05-14 18:07 ` Chris Wright
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-05-13 20:08 Andy Lutomirski
2004-05-14 1:20 ` Chris Wright
2004-05-14 1:35 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-05-14 4:51 ` Chris Wright
2004-05-14 5:33 ` Olaf Dietsche
2004-05-14 6:04 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-05-14 7:09 ` Olaf Dietsche
2004-05-14 2:27 ` Andy Lutomirski
2004-05-14 4:48 ` Chris Wright
2004-05-14 5:58 ` Andy Lutomirski
2004-05-14 17:45 ` Chris Wright
2004-05-14 6:39 ` Olaf Dietsche
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040514105801.S21045@build.pdx.osdl.net \
--to=chrisw@osdl.org \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=albert@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@myrealbox.com \
--cc=olaf+list.linux-kernel@olafdietsche.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®