> optional), I can do that too. The security model of "having a group
> gives you less privilege than not having it" seems crazy, but
> nonetheless I can see a couple of easy ways that we can avoid breaking
It's an old pattern of use that makes complete sense in a traditional
Unix permission world because it's the only way to do "exclude {list}"
nicely. Our default IMHO shouldn't break this.
> that pattern, no_new_privs being one of them. I'd like to make sure
> that nobody sees any other real-world corner case that unprivileged
> setgroups would break.
Barring the usual risk of people doing improper error checking I don't
see one immediately.
For containers I think it actually makes sense that the sysctl can be
applied per container anyway.
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
