From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
To: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@kernel.org>,
Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
Kees Cook <kees.cook@canonical.com>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
George Wilson <gcwilson@us.ibm.com>,
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES compile option
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:13:57 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091123231357.GA11844@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091123222130.GA11325@us.ibm.com>
Quoting Serge E. Hallyn (serue@us.ibm.com):
> As far as I know, all distros currently ship kernels with default
> CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES=y. Since having the option on
> leaves a 'no_file_caps' option to boot without file capabilities,
> the main reason to keep the option is that turning it off saves
> you (on my s390x partition) 5k. In particular, vmlinux sizes
> came to:
>
> without patch fscaps=n: 53598392
> without patch fscaps=y: 53603406
> with this patch applied: 53603342
>
> with the security-next tree.
>
> Against this we must weigh the fact that there is no simple way for
> userspace to figure out whether file capabilities are supported,
> while things like per-process securebits, capability bounding
> sets, and adding bits to pI if CAP_SETPCAP is in pE are not supported
> with SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES=n, leaving a bit of a problem for
> applications wanting to know whether they can use them and/or why
> something failed.
>
> It also adds another subtly different set of semantics which we must
> maintain at the risk of severe security regressions.
>
> So this patch removes the SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES compile
> option. It drops the kernel size by about 50k over the stock
As Andrew points out, not 50k! Try about 50 bytes :) Sorry about that.
-serge
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-23 23:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-23 22:21 [PATCH] remove CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES compile option Serge E. Hallyn
2009-11-23 22:34 ` Randy Dunlap
2009-11-23 23:12 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-11-23 23:13 ` Serge E. Hallyn [this message]
2009-11-24 4:59 ` James Morris
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091123231357.GA11844@us.ibm.com \
--to=serue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=agruen@suse.de \
--cc=gcwilson@us.ibm.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp \
--cc=kees.cook@canonical.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=morgan@kernel.org \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=sgrubb@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.