Re: [RFC] capabilities: Ambient capabilities

[Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn-GeWIH/nMZzLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

Quoting Andy Lutomirski (luto-kltTT9wpgjJwATOyAt5JVQ@public.gmane.org):
> On Apr 24, 2015 2:15 PM, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge-A9i7LUbDfNHQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 01:18:44PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Christoph Lameter <cl-vYTEC60ixJUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> That's sort of what my patch does -- you need CAP_SETPCAP to switch
> > > >> the securebit.
> > > >>
> > > >> But Christoph's patch required it to add caps to the ambient set, right?
> > > >
> > > > Yes but you seem to be just adding one additional step without too much of
> > > > a benefit because you still need CAP_SETPCAP.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, because I set the default to on :)
> >
> > Right - I definately prefer
> >
> > . default off
> > . CAP_SETPCAP required to turn it on (for self and children)
> > . once on, anyone can copy bits from (whatever we decided) to pA.
> >
> 
> Why default off?  If there's some weird reason that switching it on
> could cause a security problem, then I'd agree, but I haven't spotted
> a reason yet.

Cause it's less scary?

I'll just wait for the new patchset :)