Re: [PATCH] capabilities not inherited

[Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>]

On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 14:55 +0000, David Wagner wrote:
> Alexander Nyberg  wrote:
> >tor 2005-06-09 klockan 02:59 +0000 skrev David Wagner:
> >> [...] the sendmail attack [...]
> >
> >I'll look this up but it sounds very weird and I don't see how this
> >would happen with this change.
> 
> Yup, it was a weird one indeed -- which is part of why I'm concerned.
> Take a look at the attack again, then re-read my message.  Maybe my
> concerns will make more sense once you refresh your memory about the
> setuid capabilities attack?  If not, feel free to ask again, and I'll
> try to elaborate.  Here is a pointer to one description of that attack:
>     http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~daw/papers/setuid-usenix02.pdf
>     (jump straight to Section 7.1) 

Thanks for the link, I wish I had that during the realtime LSM debate,
when people were actually recommending that jackd use setuid to grant RT
scheduling ability to clients.

Lee