Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964998AbWIRMEY (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 08:04:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964997AbWIRMEY (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 08:04:24 -0400 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:26025 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964992AbWIRMEX (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 08:04:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:04:24 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Joshua Brindle Cc: David Madore , Alan Cox , Linux Kernel mailing-list , LSM mailing-list Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] security: capabilities patch (version 0.4.4), part 3/4: introduce new capabilities Message-ID: <20060918120424.GA5370@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20060910133759.GA12086@clipper.ens.fr> <20060910134257.GC12086@clipper.ens.fr> <1157905393.23085.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <450451DB.5040104@gentoo.org> <20060917181422.GC2225@elf.ucw.cz> <450DB274.1010404@gentoo.org> <20060917211602.GA6215@clipper.ens.fr> <1158579966.8680.24.camel@twoface.columbia.tresys.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1158579966.8680.24.camel@twoface.columbia.tresys.com> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1348 Lines: 31 Hi! > > > The benefits of this are so minuscule and the cost is so high if you are > > > ever to use it that it simply won't happen.. > > > > I'm withdrawing that patch anyway, in favor of a LSM-style approach, > > the "cuppabilities" module (cf. the patch I posted a couple of hours > > ago with that word in the title, and I'll be posting a new version in > > a day or so, or cf. > http://www.madore.org/~david/linux/cuppabilities/ > > >). In this case, the relative cost will be lower since the > > security_ops->inode_permission() hook is called no matter what. > > > > You misunderstand. I don't mean the performance cost is high, I mean the > cost of an application to actually be able to run without open() (what I > was saying before, static built, no glibc, no conf files, no name > lookups, etc). I never see this being used in the real world because of > the extreme limitations. It is already being used. See config_seccomp. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - 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/