From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936269AbYBCGSf (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Feb 2008 01:18:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756536AbYBCGS0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Feb 2008 01:18:26 -0500 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:42554 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756393AbYBCGSZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Feb 2008 01:18:25 -0500 Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 22:18:12 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: "Andrew G. Morgan" Cc: Linux Security Modules List , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits Message-Id: <20080202221812.2f9d70a8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <47A558CF.60702@kernel.org> References: <47A2D439.9050704@kernel.org> <20080201002837.d84fc029.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <47A558CF.60702@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.1 (GTK+ 2.8.17; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 22:01:51 -0800 "Andrew G. Morgan" wrote: > Here is the very very long version (which took some time to write, and I > thought was a bit much to spam these lists with): > > http://userweb.kernel.org/~morgan/sendmail-capabilities-war-story.html Thanks. Imagine not testing the retrn value from something like setuid(). Oh well. The reasoning for disabling it was good. So how do we ever get to the stage where we can recommend that distributors turn these things on, and have them agree with us? Do we have sufficiently stern things in place to prevent them from turning it on by accident? Some of them are pretty gung-ho.