Alan Cox wrote: > The more I follow this thread the > more generic diag seems right, even if it has a bitmask of "not > supported" diags that have "hard" features and a kernel side > table/function handlers for hard cases that people can contribute > updates to when they need a specific interface. For providing this to privileged users, I see the need of a proper access control more fine-grained than CAP_DIAG. Diag is a privileged instruction for a good reason, and the kernel needs to watch over users doing such.
Some diagnoses are useful for non-privileged users while others can undermine Linux' security model (for example diag250 can read&write to any minidisk, where a block device has an owner, group, and permissions). It's just like CAP_IOCTL would be, if it grants any operation to any device. While the big sledgehammer CAP_DIAG works, I would prefer a bunch of smaller special purpose hammers. -- Carsten Otte IBM Linux technology center ARCH=s390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
