From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morgan Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] capabilities: introduce per-process capability bounding set (v7) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:22:42 -0800 Message-ID: <473E6C92.3040302@kernel.org> References: <20071115231615.GA3851@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20071115231752.GA4518@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <473DD0CB.7090403@kernel.org> <20071117034226.GA25867@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20071117034226.GA25867@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: Linux Containers , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >> I also think we should use CAP_SETPCAP for the privilege of manipulating >> the bounding set. In many ways irrevocably removing a permission >> requires the same level of due care as adding one (to pI). > > Aside from being heavy-handed, it also means that we are restricting the > use of per-process capability bounding sets to kernels with file > capabilities compiled in, right? Are we ok with that? > I am. :-) Cheers Andrew -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHPmyQQheEq9QabfIRAnnbAJ0c22LPNc1EnjWyvR4ZrwcyAiJDrgCeOdTj TJFJwUK7UMkeX5M9ULzbN44= =LMQP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----