On Wed, 4 Feb 2015, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> Christoph, would your code run ok under NNP? > > > > There are still binaries invoked that need more priviledges. Does not > > work. > > What do you mean by "need more privileges"? Are they setuid-root or > do they use fP?
Both. > > Well I'd rather have a way to avoid writing a tool. The best would be if > > you could just set some caps and that would do it. > > However this ends up working, I'll add support to setpriv for it, so > you'll be spared writing the tool if that's acceptable. :) Sure. > > __u32 inheritable = caps->inheritable.cap[i]; > > > > /* > > - * pP' = (X & fP) | (pI & fI) > > + * pP' = (fA & fP) | (X & fP) | (pI & fI) > > pA & pP? Ok. > > + else if (rc != -ENODATA) > > + goto out; > > + rc = 0; > > + if (!cap_isclear(current_cred()->cap_ambient)) > > + goto out; > > Confused. What about effective? Don't we still need to address that? Seems that the caps do not take effect unless I set them. Is there a better way to do this? Logic is wrong. It must be if (cap_isclear(..)) goto out > > + return -EPERM; > > I don't see why this is necessary given the change above. I guess I should repost the whole patch. -- 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/
