-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This contains a typo:
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
From 588755d9498c87c4e963527ba0f49c11107de354 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:55:27 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] file capabilities: get_file_caps
David Miller schrieb:
What you get by the code going into the upstream kernel tree is that
it a) adds some pseudo legitimacy to AppArmour (which I don't
personally think is warranted) and b) gets the work of keeping
apparmour working with upstream largely off of your back and in the
hands of
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 01:27:12PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
David Miller schrieb:
What you get by the code going into the upstream kernel tree is that
it a) adds some pseudo legitimacy to AppArmour (which I don't
personally think is warranted) and b) gets the work of keeping
apparmour
Quoting Andrew Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This contains a typo:
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
From 588755d9498c87c4e963527ba0f49c11107de354 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:55:27 -0400
--- Andrew Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Does that explain it?
Yes, thanks, but then it still could come in handy to have fE be a full
bitset, so the application gets some eff caps automatically, while
others
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Casey Schaufler wrote:
The only reason for having an fE bitmap is to allow a capability-aware
program (you really trust to do its privileged operations carefully) to
be lazy and get some of its capabilities raised for free. Perhaps you
can clarify
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Casey Schaufler wrote:
Would there be a difference between that and setting either fI or fP
(depending on your intent) to those caps, and setting fE=1 in Andrew's
scheme?
Arg, you're making me think. The POSIX group went through this,
let me
