Re: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:56 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> I.e. capabilities ;)
>>
>> Circles.  All I see here are circles.
>>
>> Having lived an entire release with a capabilities based mechanism for
>> this in Fedora, please no.
>>
>> And if you are talking about non-POSIX capabilities as you mentioned
>> earlier, that seems to be no different than having securelevel being a
>> bitmask of, well, levels.  I don't have much opinion on securelevel
>> being a big hammer or a bitmask of finer grained things, but I do
>> think it's a more manageable way forward.  Calling the implementation
>> "capabilities" seems to just be unnecessarily confusing.
>>
>
> This is the term "capability" in the general sense, not the POSIX
> implementation thereof.

See the whole last paragraph.  Particularly the last sentence.

josh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/