From: Olaf Dietsche <olaf.dietsche#list.linux-kernel@t-online.de>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Posix capabilities
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:36:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y98x84c7.fsf@goat.bogus.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20021017121213.GA13573@think.thunk.org> ("Theodore Ts'o"'s message of "Thu, 17 Oct 2002 08:12:13 -0400")
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:02:25PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>> With capabilities the kernel ensures that
>> applications cannot exceed their capabilities.
Which is a _big_ plus.
> as compared
> to having every single individual administrator have make this
> determination by his or herself.
I don't see this. It's a distribution issue. There will be
administrators, who want to do it on their own, but those will be a
minority.
> Each additional thing which the system administrator has to do, is an
> additional thing that he/she can *get* *wrong*. System administators
> aren't stupid, just over-loaded, and often asked to administer
> something that's too complicated.
Once the distributions have taken care of this, there's nothing too
complicated left.
> Millions and millions of knobs and dials are not necessarily a good
> thing. If there is basically only one correct answer for how the
> knobs can be set up, sure, you can have a complex database for
> applications to determine what sort of capability masks they should
> have, and you can run that database against your database every night
> (otherwise, you might miss someone quietly modifying one or two
> capability masks to leave him/herself a back door).
>
> But why go through all that effort?
Because it's easier, than patching millions and millions of programs?
Regards, Olaf.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-10-17 15:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-10-16 15:44 Stefan Schwandter
2002-10-16 16:22 ` Bosko Radivojevic
2002-10-17 3:26 ` Theodore Ts'o
2002-10-17 4:00 ` GrandMasterLee
2002-10-17 13:22 ` Horst von Brand
2002-10-18 6:38 ` GrandMasterLee
2002-10-17 10:37 ` Olaf Dietsche
2002-10-17 11:02 ` Andreas Gruenbacher
2002-10-17 12:12 ` Theodore Ts'o
2002-10-17 15:36 ` Olaf Dietsche [this message]
2002-10-17 17:17 ` Alex Riesen
2002-10-18 16:13 ` Rogier Wolff
2002-10-17 13:40 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2002-10-17 12:05 ` Stefan Schwandter
2002-10-17 12:20 ` Theodore Ts'o
2002-10-20 14:16 ` Pavel Machek
2002-10-27 13:46 ` Andreas Gruenbacher
2002-10-17 20:43 Neil Schemenauer
2002-10-20 14:18 ` Pavel Machek
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=87y98x84c7.fsf@goat.bogus.local \
--to=olaf.dietsche#list.linux-kernel@t-online.de \
--cc=agruen@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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®