Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Aug 2006 20:19:12 -0700 | From | Seth Arnold <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] [PATCH] file posix capabilities |
| |
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 09:50:36PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > To quickly summarize the AppArmor model, you have an external policy > > Does this stack with the capability module, or do you use purely your > own logic?
We link against the commoncap facility introduced by Bert Hubert, to provide 'standard' capabilities support; we simply add another check at capable() time to _also_ check the capability against the list allowed in the current profile.
> But, the fs caps aren't intended to be an alternative to a policy-basd > system. What I like about them is simply that instead of making a > binary setuid 0, and expecting it to give up the caps it doesn't need, > it can be given just the caps it needs right off the bat. > > The apparmor and selinux policies would be complementary and useful as > ever on top of those, just as they currently are on top of setuid.
Seems like a great idea for e.g. binding to low ports, chroot, and changing users for e.g. password changing. The other 24-26 capabilities may be less useful. :) Still, I agree, complementary, and hopefully a mechanism such as this proposed mechanism would help drag capabilities out of the dark ages.
Thanks Serge [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |