On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 21:26 +0000, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > On the other hand, disabling CAP_SYS_RAWIO *definitely* breaks expected
> > functionality - firmware loading and the fibmap ioctl are probably the
> > most obvious. And changing the use of CAP_SYS_RAWIO potentially breaks
> > userspace expectations, so we're kind of stuck there.
> 
> Actually I know how to describe the problem better.
> 
> Whitelist v Blacklist.
> 
> Going around adding extra cases for CAP_SYS_RAWIO is a fails insecure
> model. Going around adding CAP_SYS_RAWIO || CAP_SYS_RAWIO_SEC is a 'fails
> secure' case.

We've already been through this. We can't add new capabilities. It
breaks existing userspace.

-- 
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@nebula.com>
���{.n�+�������+%�����ݶ��w��{.n�+����{��G�����{ay�ʇڙ�,j��f���h��������z_�(�階�ݢj"���m������G������?����&���~��iO��z��v�^�m����������?�I�