From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264288AbUENFeD (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2004 01:34:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264295AbUENFeD (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2004 01:34:03 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.184]:199 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264288AbUENFd5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2004 01:33:57 -0400 To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Chris Wright , Andy Lutomirski , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] capabilites, take 2 References: <200405131308.40477.luto@myrealbox.com> <20040513182010.L21045@build.pdx.osdl.net> <200405140135.i4E1Zp7A025139@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> From: Olaf Dietsche Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 07:33:32 +0200 In-Reply-To: <200405140135.i4E1Zp7A025139@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> (Valdis Kletnieks's message of "Thu, 13 May 2004 21:35:51 -0400") Message-ID: <874qqj1sk3.fsf@goat.bogus.local> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de auth:fa0178852225c1084dbb63fc71559d78 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu writes: > On Thu, 13 May 2004 18:20:10 PDT, Chris Wright said: > >> I think it still needs more work. Default behavoiur is changed, like >> Inheritble is full rather than clear, setpcap is enabled, etc. Also, >> why do you change from Posix the way exec() updates capabilities? Sure, >> there is no filesystem bits present, so this changes the calculation, >> but I'm not convinced it's as secure this way. At least with newcaps=0. > > The last time the "capabilities" thread reared its head a while ago, Andy made > a posting that pretty conclusively showed that the Posix way was totally b0rken > if you ever intended to support filesystem bits. So if you wanted to ever have > a snowball's chance of supporting something like: > > chcap cap_net_raw+ep /bin/ping Seems like you're not aware of: This supports filesystem capabilities with the current (POSIX?) implementation. So, whatever Andy has shown, it has at least one counter evidence q.e.d. > 2) Toss all the filesystems capabilities support out the window. I agree to disagree ;-) Regards, Olaf.