Re: Why does devices cgroup check for CAP_SYS_ADMIN explicitly?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Hello, guys.
>
> Why doesn't it follow the usual security enforced by cgroupfs
> permissions?  Why is the explicit check necessary?

An almost more interesting question is why is cgroup one of the last
pieces of code not using capabilities and instead lets you attach to any
process simply if your uid == 0.

I don't know the history but the device cgroup testing for CAP_SYS_ADMIN
makes a naive sort of sense to me.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux