Re: Capabilities

From: Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz)
Date: Fri Feb 11 2000 - 16:37:22 EST

  • Next message: Zack Weinberg: "[patch] resend - spurious ENOTCONN in shutdown()"

    Hi!
    > [snip]
    > > Well, there's a trade off here. If you could have 32 bits basically
    > > almost right away, and more would take longer, which would you choose?
    > > Also, keep in mind that more bits is not necessarily good. There is a
    > > *huge* complexity cost in maintaining capabilities. People have enough
    > > trouble keeping track of the 12 bits of permissions on a per file
    > > basis. This adds one or two orders of magnitude of more bits for every
    > > executable.
    > [snip]
    >
    > Figured I peep in here. I'm running a system that makes heavy use of caps.
    > Every daemon is in a chroot jail, every processes that needs more then
    > normal user access, uses capabilities. I've even globally droped some caps
    > (the rawio/blockdevice cap provided by a patch).

    Please take a look at
    http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/caps/capbase.html, and look if
    you could add some information.
                                                                    Pavel

    -- 
    I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
    Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents me at discuss@linmodems.org
    

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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 19 2000 - 13:17:35 EST