Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261802AbUDCPlw (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Apr 2004 10:41:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261832AbUDCPlw (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Apr 2004 10:41:52 -0500 Received: from smtp-roam.Stanford.EDU ([171.64.10.152]:8880 "EHLO smtp-roam.Stanford.EDU") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261802AbUDCPlu (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Apr 2004 10:41:50 -0500 Message-ID: <406EDB43.6030401@stanford.edu> Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 17:41:55 +0200 From: Andy Lutomirski User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Smalley , Andrew Morton CC: Chris Wright , luto@myrealbox.com, lkml 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> <406DCB32.8070403@stanford.edu> <1080942432.28777.109.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> In-Reply-To: <1080942432.28777.109.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> 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: 1526 Lines: 40 Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Fri, 2004-04-02 at 15:21, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >>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. > > > I'm not opposed to making the existing capability logic more useable; I > just think that capabilities will ultimately be superseded by TE. > > >>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. > > > Does revising the capability logic need to wait on 2.7? Have you > changed the logic significantly since the last patch you posted to lkml? > I don't _think_ it's changed, but I'll double-check that in a few days (I'm out of town). I'll also rediff my patch. Should it be a config option? Anyway, I have no strong objection to seeing a change in 2.6 -- there's just some risk that it could break something that depends on the current (broken, undocumented) behavior. Andrew: would you be willing to put a capabilities fix into -mm? --Andy - 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/