Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 9 Sep 2006 11:59:54 +0000 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: patch to make Linux capabilities into something useful (v 0.3.1) |
| |
Hi!
> > Well, I could imagine that a paranoid sysadmin might > > want some users' > > processes to run without this or that capability > > (perhaps > > CAP_REG_PTRACE or some other yet-to-be-defined > > capability). This > > doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to run a > > game which runs sgid > > in order to write the score file. > > A likely scenario might be the 3rd party program > that you really are sure about trusting. You > give it a capability set that has nothing in it > (hence runs without capability regardless of > the capabilities of the parent). That's part > of the rationale behind the POSIX scheme, that > some programs you just don't want to ever run > privileged, period. But POSIX only deals with > going "above" base, which is why I like the > notion of your "underprivileged" scheme as a > seperate addition.
Well, in kernel above-priviledge and below-priviledge makes sense to be handled by same code. You can always create interface you prefer in glibc... Pavel
-- Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |