From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261479AbUENR6P (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2004 13:58:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261984AbUENR6P (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2004 13:58:15 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:44997 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261479AbUENR6F (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2004 13:58:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:58:01 -0700 From: Chris Wright To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Albert Cahalan , linux-kernel mailing list , chrisw@osdl.org, olaf+list.linux-kernel@olafdietsche.de, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH] capabilites, take 2 Message-ID: <20040514105801.S21045@build.pdx.osdl.net> References: <1084536213.951.615.camel@cube> <40A4DD7B.6070208@myrealbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <40A4DD7B.6070208@myrealbox.com>; from luto@myrealbox.com on Fri, May 14, 2004 at 07:53:47AM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * 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