From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752455AbXCHQYl (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:24:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752460AbXCHQYk (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:24:40 -0500 Received: from web36605.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.22]:22650 "HELO web36605.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752455AbXCHQYj (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:24:39 -0500 X-YMail-OSG: EhkcDYEVM1lGvfykYp9riLgJevjSDeMjycrvbVc3aUdEhidRK_EERl2mifeaxTIjIw-- X-RocketYMMF: rancidfat Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 08:24:38 -0800 (PST) From: Casey Schaufler Reply-To: casey@schaufler-ca.com Subject: Re: Request change in behaviour of capability inheritance. To: rgarcia@kotasoft.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <15429.83.60.135.204.1173342736.squirrel@webmail2.digitalinet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-ID: <887.65866.qm@web36605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --- rgarcia@kotasoft.com wrote: > I think that the current behaviour of capability > inheritance across exec() > is not optimal. > > The current behaviour consists in all effective and > permitted capabilities > are cleared across a exec(). This is because it > seems to be intended that > in the future the executable files have a set of > "allowed" and "forced" > capabilities. File based capabilities are the same effective, permitted, and inheritable sets that the process has. Unless the thinking has shifted over the last couple weeks (it happens from time to time) the inheritable set is what you're missing. Casey Schaufler casey@schaufler-ca.com