Re: [RFC] [PATCH] file posix capabilities

[Seth Arnold <seth.arnold@suse.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1227 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 09:50:36PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > To quickly summarize the AppArmor model, you have an external policy
> 
> Does this stack with the capability module, or do you use purely your
> own logic?

We link against the commoncap facility introduced by Bert Hubert, to
provide 'standard' capabilities support; we simply add another check at
capable() time to _also_ check the capability against the list allowed
in the current profile.

> But, the fs caps aren't intended to be an alternative to a policy-basd
> system.  What I like about them is simply that instead of making a
> binary setuid 0, and expecting it to give up the caps it doesn't need,
> it can be given just the caps it needs right off the bat.
> 
> The apparmor and selinux policies would be complementary and useful as
> ever on top of those, just as they currently are on top of setuid.

Seems like a great idea for e.g. binding to low ports, chroot, and
changing users for e.g. password changing. The other 24-26 capabilities
may be less useful. :) Still, I agree, complementary, and hopefully a
mechanism such as this proposed mechanism would help drag capabilities
out of the dark ages.

Thanks Serge

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]