Glenn Faden wrote:
> Darren Reed wrote:
>
>> I don't know if what I'm really searching for is
>> PRIV_NET_FIREWALL or more. What I do know is that
>> PRIV_SYS_NET_CONFIG seems very wrong because of
>> the scope and nothing else in PRIV_NET_* seems
>> to be well suited to the task on my mind.
>>
>>
>
> New privileges can be introduced, but we try to keep the name space
> flat. In other words, we don't want having one privilege to imply that
> you also have any others. Every required privilege should be explicit
> enabled.
Based on the description of the desired granularity I think the
typical model of using PRIV_SYS_NET_CONFIG (and/or PRIV_SYS_IP_CONFIG)
then modifying commands such as ipf to check more specific
authorizations works.
A "normal" user can then be assigned the ability to do some actions
by assigning them the ability to execute ipf with PRIV_SYS_NET_CONFIG
via the exec_attr and giving them their granular auths.
A privileged user can use PRIV_SYS_NET_CONFIG and either having
solaris.* auths or bypassing the auth checking ipf command to do anything.
-Will
