Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262885AbUDBUVG (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:21:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264170AbUDBUVF (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:21:05 -0500 Received: from smtp-roam.Stanford.EDU ([171.64.10.152]:58514 "EHLO smtp-roam.Stanford.EDU") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262885AbUDBUVC (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Apr 2004 15:21:02 -0500 Message-ID: <406DCB32.8070403@stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 22:21:06 +0200 From: Andy Lutomirski User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Wright CC: Stephen Smalley , Andrew Morton , luto@myrealbox.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: capabilitiescompute_cred References: <20040402033231.05c0c337.akpm@osdl.org> <1080912069.27706.42.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20040402111554.E21045@build.pdx.osdl.net> In-Reply-To: <20040402111554.E21045@build.pdx.osdl.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1614 Lines: 37 Chris Wright wrote: >>IMHO, capabilities are a broken idea anyway, and should ultimately be >>replaced entirely using Type Enforcement (which SELinux includes). A >>comparison of the two approaches is in >>http://www.securecomputing.com/pdf/secureos.pdf. Today we still stack >>SELinux with the capabilities module, but long term, I'd like to see us >>just drop capabilities and use TE by itself to manage privileges. > > > I have the same dislike for capabilities. It's more like a wart than > a feature. I get requests to have RBAC be the core priv system rather > than capabilities. I agree in principle, but it would still be nice to have a simple way to have useful capabilities without setting up a MAC system. I don't see a capabilities fix adding any significant amount of code; it just takes some effort to get it right. > > In the meantime, I've often idly wondered why we don't simply inherit as > advertised. The patch below does this, but I haven't even started > looking for security sensitive failure modes. I'm not sure that introduces security problems, but I'm also not sure it fixes much. You can find my attempts to get it right in the linux-kernel archives, and I'll probably try to get something into 2.7 when it forks. With or without MAC, having a functioning capability system wouldn't hurt security. > > thanks, > -chris - 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/