On Nov 17, 2014 3:37 AM, "One Thousand Gnomes"
<gno...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > optional), I can do that too. The security model of "having a group
> > gives you less privilege than not having it" seems crazy, but
> > nonetheless I can see a couple of easy ways that we can avoid breaking
>
> It's an old pattern of use that makes complete sense in a traditional
> Unix permission world because it's the only way to do "exclude {list}"
> nicely. Our default IMHO shouldn't break this.
>
> > that pattern, no_new_privs being one of them. I'd like to make sure
> > that nobody sees any other real-world corner case that unprivileged
> > setgroups would break.
>
> Barring the usual risk of people doing improper error checking I don't
> see one immediately.
>
> For containers I think it actually makes sense that the sysctl can be
> applied per container anyway.
We'll probably need per container sysctls some day.
>
> Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
