From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:49934) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RIQ64-0000fV-8w for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:22:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RIQ61-0006ww-3W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:22:08 -0400 Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.137]:60488) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RIQ61-0006wU-0z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:22:05 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e7.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:21:57 -0400 Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (d03av05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.85]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p9OJLRom247604 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:21:27 -0400 Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p9OJL5aU013575 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:21:05 -0600 Message-ID: <4EA5BAA1.9010507@us.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:21:05 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1319209643-3866-1-git-send-email-coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1319209643-3866-4-git-send-email-coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4EA5729C.60509@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4EA5B0BC.10203@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4EA5B8E5.6040306@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <4EA5B8E5.6040306@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/4] Add cap reduction support to enable use as SUID List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Corey Bryant Cc: Blue Swirl , rmarwah@linux.vnet.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 10/24/2011 02:13 PM, Corey Bryant wrote: >> Right, it's not desirable, but isn't that the best we can do without >> libcap or FS capabilities? >> > > I think the best we can do is not let it run in those cases. :) I'd like see if > others in the community have an opinion on this though. IMHO, it should work as an setuid binary maintaining root privileges. As long as it's a small binary (which it is) and is easy to audit, it should be safe. Regards, Anthony Liguori