On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 01:01:48AM +0000, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> --- David Madore <[email protected]> wrote:
> > doesn't it make sense to implement them in the same
> > framework?
>
> I'm certainly not convinced that you'd
> want that. Think of all the programs that
> would have to be marked with CAP_FORK.
They wouldn't have to be marked: capabilities are inherited by
default, with my patch (as is the Unix tradition: euid=0 or {r,s}uid=0
are preserved upon execve()), normal processes have CAP_FORK and just
pass it on if you don't do something special to remove it.
> > Rather
> > than trying to reproduce the same rules in a
> > different part of the
> > kernel, causing code reduplication which would
> > eventually, inevitably,
> > fall out of sync... I think it's easier for
> > everyone if under- and
> > over-privileges are treated in a uniform fashion.
>
> This again assumes that you want to require
> that in general processes run with some
> capabilities.
Yes. In general, processes have all "regular" capabilities, and they
are inherited normally.
--
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]
