Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756124AbZKJOHh (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:07:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750912AbZKJOHh (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:07:37 -0500 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:36413 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750830AbZKJOHg (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:07:36 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:07:39 -0600 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: lkml Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morgan , Steve Grubb , Kees Cook , Andreas Gruenbacher , Michael Kerrisk , George Wilson Subject: drop SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES? Message-ID: <20091110140739.GA15534@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1391 Lines: 34 Hey, Just a probe to see what people think. I've seen two cases in about the last month where software was confounded by an assumption that prctl(PR_CAPBSET_DROP, CAP_SOMETHING) would succeed if privileged, but not handling the fact that SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES=n means you can't do that. Are we at the point yet where we feel we can get rid of the SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES=n case? Note that there is a boot arg no_file_caps which prevents file capabilities from being used if SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES=y. I think that's the case most users will care about, whereas the remaining differences between CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES=y and =n are that with CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES=y : (1) certain security hooks (task_setscheduler, task_setioprio, and task_setnice) do capability set comparisions, (2) it is possible to drop capabilities from the bounding set, (3) it is possible to set per-task securelevels, (4) and it is possible to add any capability to your inheritable set if you have CAP_SETPCAP. Does anyone know of cases where CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES=n is still perceived as useful? thanks, -serge -- 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/