On Thursday 29 November 2007 4:24:35 pm Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 14:27 -0500, tmiller@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > This is a reworking of the peersid capability patch Joshua sent out > > a few weeks ago. This version requires added explicit declaration of > > capabilities in the policy. > > > > I've used the same strings that Paul's kernel diff used (there is > > currently just a single capability). > > > > Note that capability declarations are not limited to base.conf / > > policy.conf as we would like to eventually get rid of the base vs. module > > distinction. > > Taking the union of the capabilities at link time seems worrisome to me. > I'd be more inclined to require equivalence or take the intersection. I agree with Stephen, to allow a single module to set a capability bit without consideration for the rest of the loaded/installed modules could introduce some very weird behavior ... that is unless you policy folks have some freaky ability to peer* into the future ;) *intentional pun -- paul moore linux security @ hp -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
