Quoting Casey Schaufler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > --- Andrew Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > >> Does that explain it? > > > > > > Yes, thanks, but then it still could come in handy to have fE be a full > > > bitset, so the application gets some eff caps automatically, while > > > others it has to manually set... > > > > [We touched on this a number of emails back.] > > > > If an application is capability aware, it can manipulate its own > > capabilities and should have fE=0. > > > > If an application is not capability aware, it needs to have *all* of its > > capabilities enabled at exec() time. Otherwise, it won't work. > > The intent of the fE vector in the POSIX draft is that those capabilities > are set on exec (lower vectors permitting). There are cases where it > does make sense to raise just some (e.g. ping). > > > The only reason for having an fE bitmap is to allow a capability-aware > > program (you really trust to do its privileged operations carefully) to > > be lazy and get some of its capabilities raised for free. Perhaps you > > can clarify why this is a desirable thing? :-) > > No, it's to allow you to grant a subset of the available capabilities > to a program that is not aware of capabilities. You can give "date" > the capability to reset the clock without giving it the capability > to remove other people's files without changing the code or running > it setuid.
Would there be a difference between that and setting either fI or fP (depending on your intent) to those caps, and setting fE=1 in Andrew's scheme? thanks, -serge - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
