On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 01:25:31PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> The fact that you're changing the inheritance rules is a bit scary, so
> I'm going to (and I hope others will) take some time to look it over.
Thanks! I'd appreciate it. Don't hesitate to ask me if some
decisions I made are unclear.
I was about to write to you, in fact, since I wrote a version of my
patch which merges with the one you made (an old version, though, I
suppose: I took it from <URL: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/15/294 >,
but I can try merging with more recent versions). The point being to
show that my patch is not incompatible with yours: they are quite
complementary. (The merged patch can be found in <URL:
ftp://quatramaran.ens.fr/pub/madore/newcaps/pre-alpha/ >.)
> In the meantime, so long as you're adding some new capabilities, how
> about also splitting up a few like CAP_SYS_ADMIN? Have you looked into
> it and decided none are really separable, i.e. any subset leads to the
> ability to get any other subset?
I agree that splitting CAP_SYS_ADMIN might be worth while, but it
really looks like opening a worm can, so I didn't feel up to the
challenge there. It might be a good idea to reserve some bits for
that possibility, however - I'm not sure how best to proceed.
> I'd recommend you split this patch into at least 3:
> 1. move to 64-bit caps
> 2. introduce your new caps
> (perhaps even one new cap per patch)
> 3. introduce the new inheritance rules
Yes, that sounds like a good idea. I'll do that.
--
David A. Madore
([email protected],
http://www.madore.org/~david/ )
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
