Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:00:29 -0700 (PDT) | From | Y2K <> | Subject | Re: cap set name change |
| |
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > Considering your plans to change behavior... > Please do not use the draft names without the draft behavior. > It will cause confusion, and security-related confusion is dangerous. Its a dead withdrawn draft, I'll make sure I put derived from withdrawn posix draft disclaimer in a .sig or something. > Avoid these names: > fI, fE, fP, pI, pE, pP, inheritable, inherited, effective, permitted Kind of hard since I'm interfacing with pre-existing linux facilities. current->cap_permitted capabilities.h CAP_SETUID all looks kind of like those terms. > It would be best to avoid the whole "capabilities" term, which already > causes confusion with a "pure capabilities" system. Try "privileges". Maybe I'll call it soiled capabilities;-> > Since you clearly do intend to break compatibility with the draft, > you might as well simplify down to a single set of bits as well. > (well, a "known bits" and "minimum needed" would reduce accidents) Actually I'm bending and detailing it quite roughly, but off top of head can't see where I've broken it;-> Default setings for fP fI fE where never mentioned AFAICS. I am also actually using stricter formulas than in the draft. I beleive there was a section that said extensions were OK as long as they more restrictive. I also think it is interesting when people say my porposal is less secure when it is more restrictive. My patch should at least be something to think about and has useful behavior for some people to play with RSN. Besides it seems like I might be the lone lunatic here, I'm sure a few people who disagree with me could start coding and produce something more to their liking.
-- Warning when I mention capabilites I mean "soiled" capabilities not "pure". Any caps I mention are *derived* from a withdrawn draft posix document.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |