Re: [PATCH RFC] file capabilities: clear fcaps on inode change

2007-08-04 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Andrew Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Serge E. Hallyn wrote: Meanwhile, any chance you would get some time to implement the cap_bset vs fcaps change you wanted? I'd have to look at my checklist to be sure, but I think that, a version

Re: [PATCH RFC] file capabilities: clear fcaps on inode change

2007-08-04 Thread Andrew Morgan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Serge E. Hallyn wrote: 0. fix the implementation of cap_setpcap. It is supposed to mean 'this process can raise capabilities, outside its permitted set, in _its own_ inheritable set'. A few clarification questions: Process p1 is calling

Re: [PATCH RFC] file capabilities: clear fcaps on inode change

2007-08-04 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Andrew Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): My current working preference is: 0, 3, 1, 2. I don't consider any of them as urgent as getting the inode modification protection fixed. Oops. Right. I'm not sure I'll have a laptop with me tomorow, but I'll try to get a patch out no later than

Re: [PATCH RFC] file capabilities: clear fcaps on inode change

2007-07-31 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Andrew Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Serge E. Hallyn wrote: Yes. I'd thought about adding a security_ops-inode_change() or somesuch hook, but there were two reasons I didn't. First, this should be done whether or not the capability

Re: [PATCH RFC] file capabilities: clear fcaps on inode change

2007-07-31 Thread Casey Schaufler
--- Andrew Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Serge E. Hallyn wrote: Meanwhile, any chance you would get some time to implement the cap_bset vs fcaps change you wanted? I'd have to look at my checklist to be sure, but I think that, a version

Re: [PATCH RFC] file capabilities: clear fcaps on inode change

2007-07-30 Thread Stephen Smalley
On Sun, 2007-07-29 at 08:48 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: --- Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Andrew Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Is this the sort of change that should be abstracted into the security module API?

Re: [PATCH RFC] file capabilities: clear fcaps on inode change

2007-07-29 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Andrew Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Is this the sort of change that should be abstracted into the security module API? To this point, everything about the fcap changes have been in headers and within the security module code. Yes.

Re: [PATCH RFC] file capabilities: clear fcaps on inode change

2007-07-29 Thread Casey Schaufler
--- Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Andrew Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Is this the sort of change that should be abstracted into the security module API? To this point, everything about the fcap changes have been in

Re: [PATCH RFC] file capabilities: clear fcaps on inode change

2007-07-27 Thread Seth Arnold
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 12:31:11PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: When you setfcaps -c cap_net_admin=p -e /bin/ping cp /bin/sh /bin/ping then /bin/ping should lose its file capabilities. This patch probably will need to be cleaned up, but seems to work as it should. Example

Re: [PATCH RFC] file capabilities: clear fcaps on inode change

2007-07-27 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Seth Arnold ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 12:31:11PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: When you setfcaps -c cap_net_admin=p -e /bin/ping cp /bin/sh /bin/ping then /bin/ping should lose its file capabilities. This patch probably will need to be cleaned