On 02/13/2013 09:56 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 09:51 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
On 2/13/2013 9:26 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Admit that CAP_SYS_RAWIO is fucked up beyond rescue. Add a new
capability with well-defined semantics.
You can't add a new capability where there is an existing capability
that can be remotely argued to be appropriate.
CAP_SYS_RAWIO can't be argued to be appropriate. It covers a range of
functionality that doesn't permit the running kernel to be modified and
which is required to provide a functional Linux system. Using it would
require redefining its existing usage, which would break existing
userspace.
So people have piggybacked complete inappropriate junk onto
CAP_SYS_RAWIO. Great. What the hell do we do now? We can't break
apart CAP_SYS_RAWIO because we don't have hierarchical capabilities.
We thus have a bunch of unpalatable choices, **all of which are wrong**.
This, incidentally, is *exactly* the reason I object to
CAP_COMPROMISE_KERNEL as well... it describes a usage model, not a resource.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
