Re: capabilitiescompute_cred

[Andy Lutomirski <luto@stanford.edu>]

Stephen Smalley wrote:

> On Fri, 2004-04-02 at 15:21, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
>>I agree in principle, but it would still be nice to have a simple way to 
>>have useful capabilities without setting up a MAC system.  I don't see a 
>>capabilities fix adding any significant amount of code; it just takes 
>>some effort to get it right.
> 
> 
> I'm not opposed to making the existing capability logic more useable; I
> just think that capabilities will ultimately be superseded by TE.
>  
> 
>>You can find my attempts to get it right in the 
>>linux-kernel archives, and I'll probably try to get something into 2.7 
>>when it forks.  With or without MAC, having a functioning capability 
>>system wouldn't hurt security.
> 
> 
> Does revising the capability logic need to wait on 2.7?  Have you
> changed the logic significantly since the last patch you posted to lkml?
> 

I don't _think_ it's changed, but I'll double-check that in a few days 
(I'm out of town).  I'll also rediff my patch.  Should it be a config 
option?

Anyway, I have no strong objection to seeing a change in 2.6 -- there's 
just some risk that it could break something that depends on the current 
(broken, undocumented) behavior.

Andrew:  would you be willing to put a capabilities fix into -mm?

--Andy