| 1 |
Greg KH wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 12:01:12PM -0400, Joshua Brindle wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>Now then, about LSM.. Capabilities are still hard coded into the kernel |
| 7 |
>>if you do _NOT_ use LSM (ie: selinux). |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>Um, SELinux uses LSM :) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
right but not everyone in the audience is familiar with "LSM" nor is it |
| 16 |
in the kernel Kconfig or anywhere they could figure it out easily |
| 17 |
so, being nice, I gave an example of something that uses LSM |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
>>That means every single Linux kernel has capabilies enabled and |
| 20 |
>>available. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
>Not true at all, it's quite easy to build a kernel without capabilities |
| 25 |
>enabled. Like, for example, if you choose to use my stupid little |
| 26 |
>root-plug LSM kernel module. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
You are right, and I got this correction earlier. In the first LSM |
| 30 |
kernels capabilities were not totally removed from the kernel proper |
| 31 |
into LSM and I (wrongly) thought this was still the case. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Joshua Brindle |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives