Re: Status of capabilities?

[Chris Wright]

* Dax Kelson ([e-mail]) wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 14:54, Chris Wright wrote:
> > * Jesse Pollard ([e-mail]) wrote:
> > > 
> > > Actually, I think most of that work has already been done by the Linux
> > > Security Module project (well, except #7).
> > 
> > The LSM project supports capabilities exactly as it appears in the
> > kernel right now.  The EA linkage is still missing.  Of course, we are
> > accepting patches ;-)
> 
> Has either lscap or chcap been written? I suppose not as that would
> require a consensus on how capabilities would be stored as a EA. 

You might take a look at the linux-privs stuff.  I believe it's pretty
out of date, but you can see where things left off.  Specifically, the
fcap parts.

> 
> That EA would need to be "special" and only be changeable by uid 0 (or
> CAP_CHFSCAP).

Actually, that would be CAP_SETFCAP as defined by the standard.

> So, has any of the below changed now that LSM has entered the picture?

No.  The EA bits are the important part.

> 1. Define how capabilities will be stored as a EA
> 2. Teach fs/exec.c to use the capabilities stored with the file
> 3. Write lscap(1)
> 4. Write chcap(1)
> 5. Audit/fix all SUID root binaries to be capabilities aware
> 6. Set appropriate capabilities with for each with chcap(1) and then:
>    # find / -type f -perm -4000 -user root -exec chmod u-s {} \;
> 7. Party and snicker in the general direction of that OS with the slogan
> "One remote hole in the default install, in nearly 6 years!"

thanks,
-chris
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net