Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:04:31 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: Capabilities |
| |
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 09:42:22PM -0300, Horst von Brand wrote: > Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> said: > > In-Reply-To: <200002192338.e1JNcw216382@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl>; from vonbrand@ > > ***sleipnir.valparaiso.cl on Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 08:38:58PM -0300 > > > > > If you want to elevate some priviledges, make it setuid 0 (that will > > > > give it all capabilities) and you can now copy forced into > > > > allowed. You are done. You have nice compatibility (ls) for free, and > > > > you have 32 more bits for your use! > > > > Who says running as UID == 0 gives you all capabilities? Why have a > > > Backwards compatibility. > > Doesn't cut it: It is _exactly_ what capabilities are designed to avoid. > You can get (some) backwards compatibility by setting capabilities > adequately.
I thin we should do it so, but this is a userlevel featue. We should ad a rc file /etc/capabilitys with following content:
capabyility:passwd:initialusers | | | | users, whiches login-shell inherits this cap form login | the passwd you need to get this cap ( like IRIX su -C <cap> )
> > > > distinguished root user at all? OTOH, it does make sense to have a program > > > that can modify files belonging to DNS, and which is allowed to bind to a > > > low port, but nothing else. The UID/GID (and ACL) stuff and capabilities > > > are complementary. > > > I said that different uid is where this gets ugly ;-). Take a look at > > elfcap.
I think we should get elfcap into the kernel before 2.4. In 2.5 we can replace it with properly integration of capabilitys in the filesystem.
Christoph
-- Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.
- 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/
| |