Re: [RFC] capabilities: Ambient capabilities

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Quoting Andy Lutomirski (luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Quoting Christoph Lameter (cl@xxxxxxxxx):
>> >> On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > > I'll submit a new version this week with the securebits.  Sorry for the delay.
>> >>  > Are we going to get a new version?
>> >>
>> >> Replying to my own here. Cant we simply use the SETPCAP approach as per
>> >> the patch I posted?
>> >
>> > Andy had objections to that, but it seems ok to me.
>> >
>>
>> I object because CAP_SETPCAP is very powerful whereas
>> CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE, for example, isn't.  I'm fine with having a
>> switch to turn off ambient caps, but requiring the "on" state to give
>
> Would only really be needed for the initial 'enable ambient caps for this
> process tree', though.  Once that was set, add/remove'ing caps from the
> ambient set wouldn't need to be required.

That's sort of what my patch does -- you need CAP_SETPCAP to switch
the securebit.

But Christoph's patch required it to add caps to the ambient set, right?

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/