Quoting Christoph Lameter (c...@linux.com): > On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > > Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, apps do have surprises. > > They drop capabilities, execute a file, and the result has capabilities > > which the app couldn't have expected. At least if the bits have to be > > in fI to become part of pP', the app has a clue. > > Well yes but the surprises do not occur in the cap bits they are > manipulating or inspecting via prctl. > > > To be clear, I'm suggesting that the rules at exec become: > > > > pI' = pI > > Ok that is new and on its own may solve the issue?
No that's not new. > > pA' = pA (pA is ambient) > > Thats what this patch does > > > pP' = (X & fP) | (pI & (fI | pA)) > > Hmmm... fP is empty for the file not having caps. so > > pP' = pI & pA Right. > > pE' = pP' & fE > > fE? So the inherited caps are not effective? fE would be empty for a file > not having caps thus the ambient caps would not be available in the child. Yeah we could make this pE' = pP' & (fE | pA) -serge -- 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/
