From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261373AbVFHVUu (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:20:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261732AbVFHVUu (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:20:50 -0400 Received: from mailfe04.swip.net ([212.247.154.97]:58353 "EHLO swip.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261373AbVFHVUo (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:20:44 -0400 X-T2-Posting-ID: jLUmkBjoqvly7NM6d2gdCg== Subject: Re: [PATCH] capabilities not inherited From: Alexander Nyberg To: Chris Wright Cc: Manfred Georg , gregkh@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20050608204430.GC9153@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> References: <20050608204430.GC9153@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:20:42 +0200 Message-Id: <1118265642.969.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ons 2005-06-08 klockan 13:44 -0700 skrev Chris Wright: > * Manfred Georg (mgeorg@arl.wustl.edu) wrote: > > I was working with passing capabilities through an exec and it > > didn't do what I expected it to. That is, if I set a bit in > > the inherited capabilities, it is not "inherited" after an > > exec(). After going through the code many times, and still not > > understanding it, I hacked together this patch. It probably > > has unforseen side effects and there was probably some > > reason it was not done in the first place. > > True to both. If you'd like to work with this, check the archives for > similar patches. Most recent in a thread from Alex Nyberg starting > here: > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=111062795600730&w=2 > btw since the last discussion was about not changing the existing interface and thus exposing security flaws, what about introducing another prctrl that says maybe PRCTRL_ACROSS_EXECVE? Any new user-space applications must understand the implications of using it so it's safe in that aspect. Yes? (yeah it's rather silly since there already is an unused keep_capabilities flag but that would change old interfaces so ok)