Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

2008-02-05 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Andrew G. Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Here is the patch to add per-process securebits. > > Its all code that lives inside the capability LSM and the new securebits > implementation is only active if CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES is >

Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

2008-02-04 Thread Ismail Dönmez
At Monday 04 February 2008 around 18:45:24 Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Andrew G. Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Ismail D??nmez wrote: > > | What I meant to ask was what does "per-process securebits" brings as > > > > extra. > > > > It

Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

2008-02-04 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:17:22 + Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri 2008-02-01 20:07:01, James Morris wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > Really? I'd feel a lot more comfortable if yesterday's version 1 had led > > > to a stream of comments from suitably-

Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

2008-02-04 Thread Pavel Machek
On Fri 2008-02-01 20:07:01, James Morris wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Really? I'd feel a lot more comfortable if yesterday's version 1 had led > > to a stream of comments from suitably-knowledgeable kernel developers which > > indicated that those developers had scrutin

Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

2008-02-04 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Andrew G. Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ismail D??nmez wrote: > | What I meant to ask was what does "per-process securebits" brings as > extra. > > It allows you to create a legacy free process tree. For example, a > chroot, or container (

Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

2008-02-03 Thread Andrew G. Morgan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ismail Dönmez wrote: | What I meant to ask was what does "per-process securebits" brings as extra. It allows you to create a legacy free process tree. For example, a chroot, or container (which Serge can obviously explain in more detail), environment

Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

2008-02-03 Thread Ismail Dönmez
At Monday 04 February 2008 around 02:49:29 Andrew G. Morgan wrote: > Another way to put this is that there needs to be some application code > and documentation available to guide the way... Adding such things to > the example programs in libcap2 helped me find the 24-rc2 CAP_SETPCAP > bug and unti

Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

2008-02-03 Thread Andrew G. Morgan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ismail � wrote: | At Sunday 03 February 2008 around 08:18:12 Andrew Morton wrote: |> So how do we ever get to the stage where we can recommend that distributors |> turn these things on, and have them agree with us? | | FWIW with my distributor hat on

Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

2008-02-02 Thread Ismail Dönmez
At Sunday 03 February 2008 around 08:18:12 Andrew Morton wrote: > So how do we ever get to the stage where we can recommend that distributors > turn these things on, and have them agree with us? FWIW with my distributor hat on I think File system capabilities are very nice and enables one to ship

Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

2008-02-02 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 22:01:51 -0800 "Andrew G. Morgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is the very very long version (which took some time to write, and I > thought was a bit much to spam these lists with): > > http://userweb.kernel.org/~morgan/sendmail-capabilities-war-story.html Thanks. Imag

Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

2008-02-02 Thread Andrew G. Morgan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Quoting Andrew G. Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): |> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- |> Hash: SHA1 |> |> Here is the patch to add per-process securebits. |> |> Its all code that lives inside the capability LSM and the new s

Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

2008-02-02 Thread Andrew G. Morgan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Morton wrote: | On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:11:37 -0800 "Andrew G. Morgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | |> [This patch represents a no-op unless CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES |> is enabled at configure time.] | | Patches like this scare the pan

Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

2008-02-01 Thread serge
Quoting Andrew G. Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Here is the patch to add per-process securebits. > > Its all code that lives inside the capability LSM and the new securebits > implementation is only active if CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES is >

Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

2008-02-01 Thread James Morris
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > Really? I'd feel a lot more comfortable if yesterday's version 1 had led > to a stream of comments from suitably-knowledgeable kernel developers which > indicated that those developers had scrutinised this code from every > conceivable angle and had decl

Re: [PATCH] per-process securebits

2008-02-01 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:11:37 -0800 "Andrew G. Morgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [This patch represents a no-op unless CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES > is enabled at configure time.] Patches like this scare the pants off me. I'd have to recommend that distributors not enable this feature (

[PATCH] per-process securebits

2008-02-01 Thread Andrew G. Morgan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Here is the patch to add per-process securebits. Its all code that lives inside the capability LSM and the new securebits implementation is only active if CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES is enabled (it doesn't make much sense to support this featur