On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 17:26:18 -0400 James Bottomley <james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 22:12 +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > > A non-security use case would be to run the binary (without > > > modification) with a different ELF interpreter (assuming this > > > allows to override binfmt_elf, but self-sandboxing would need that > > > as well). This would make it easier to use older or newer libcs > > > for select binaries on the system. Right now, one has to write > > > wrappers for that, and the explicit dynamic linker invocation is > > > not completely transparent to the application. > > > > If it gets in I'll be using it to label CP/M COM files so that they > > can be auto-run nicely when crossbuilding stuff in part with the > > original tools but a modern build environment 8) > > > > Sandboxing is an obvious use but there are more bizarre ones such as > > marking a file system image to get auto-run under a virtual machine > > or make containers fire up as if they were commands. > > So I asked previously but didn't get an answer. If this is useful for > sandboxing and being in the sandbox depends on the xattr value, > shouldn't it be in one of the privileged xattr namespaces, not the > user. one? IMHO no - because it's not giving additional rights, it is taking rights away voluntarily - because as a user I can simply cp the file to get an unsandboxed version If it was a setuid like bit then yes it would matter. Alan
