Capabilities workshop, followup questions

[Andrew Morgan]

I think my impressions differed from yours(!):

 http://www.geocrawler.com/lists/3/SourceForge/4109/0/3905261/

Specifically, I felt:

* that there was little love expressed for global constraints
(secure-level, global bounding sets etc.).

* DS17 were the exec rules we emerged with. I didn't hear anyone pushing
the D16 model.

> Finally, I had a few questions about things we did not resolve.  First, in
> the setuid world, modifications to the setuid binary result in removal of
> the setuid bit.  Should modifications to a capabilities binary result in
> capabilities being removed?  Richard Offer and I discussed issues of

IMHO Yes.

> As I don't have a copy of D16, I can't comment on the rule set
> differences, but it sounded to me like we firmly concluded the D16
> inheritence rules were the way to go.  Could someone post the conclusions
> on that?

? I didn't leave with this impression at all.

Cheers

Andrew
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at cyrus.watson.org
with "unsubscribe posix1e" in the body of the message