Re: [PATCH] capabilities: introduce per-process capability bounding set (v10)

Serge,

Is there any reason not to have a separate /etc/login.capbounds
config file, though, so the account can still have a full name?
Did you only use that for convenience of proof of concept, or
is there another reason?


passwd(5) says the fifth field is optional and only used for
informational purpose (like ulimit, umask).

However, using any other separate config file is conservative
and better. One candidate is "/etc/security/capability.conf"
defined as the config file of pam_cap.

Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <[email protected]>
--
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/

References:
- [PATCH] capabilities: introduce per-process capability bounding set (v10)
  - From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] capabilities: introduce per-process capability bounding set (v10)
  - From: KaiGai Kohei <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] capabilities: introduce per-process capability bounding set (v10)
  - From: [email protected]

Prev by Date: Re: namespace support requires network modules to say "GPL"
Next by Date: [PATCH] fix x86-32 early fixmap initialization.
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] capabilities: introduce per-process capability bounding set (v10)
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] capabilities: introduce per-process capability bounding set (v10)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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]