On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 09:29 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > 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 I'm going to have to agree too. Though I don't know which of equivalence or intersection is the right answer. > ... that is unless you policy folks have some freaky > ability to peer* into the future ;) I can neither confirm nor deny any omniscience. :) > *intentional pun > -- Chris PeBenito Tresys Technology, LLC (410) 290-1411 x150 -- 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.
