Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752192AbXJWJSn (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 05:18:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752140AbXJWJSe (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 05:18:34 -0400 Received: from sovereign.computergmbh.de ([85.214.69.204]:47048 "EHLO sovereign.computergmbh.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751690AbXJWJSd (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 05:18:33 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:18:32 +0200 (CEST) From: Jan Engelhardt To: "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" cc: Linus Torvalds , Andreas Gruenbacher , Thomas Fricaccia , Linux Kernel Mailing List , James Morris Subject: Re: LSM conversion to static interface In-Reply-To: <471DBB75.9020605@debian.org> Message-ID: References: <167451.96128.qm@web38607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200710192226.53233.agruen@suse.de> <471D8A4C.3020101@debian.org> <471DBB75.9020605@debian.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 904 Lines: 21 On Oct 23 2007 11:14, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: >> So, we give caps to the subadmins (which is IMHO a natural task), >> and then, as per LSM design (wonder where that is written) deny >> some of the rights that the capabilities raised for subadmins grant, >> because that is obviously too much. > > Nothing wrong. I only said that it was against (IIRC) the > principle of LSM in kernel (we should only remove capacities). Leave my capacitance alone! :) [i hope you get the joke] Anyway - I see your point. But what would give the user the capabilities in the first place, if not a security module that implements this-and-that capability-raising scheme? - 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/