linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH 2/2] capabilities: implement 64-bit capabilities

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20071018052111.GQ3906@sequoia.sous-sol.org>
Date:	Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:21:11 -0700
From:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
To:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>, sds@...ho.nsa.gov,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, morgan@...nel.org,
	chrisw@...s-sol.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kaigai@...gai.gr.jp, casey@...aufler-ca.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 2/2] capabilities: implement 64-bit capabilities

* Serge E. Hallyn (serge@...lyn.com) wrote:
> I guess now that I've written this out, it seems pretty clear
> that capget64() and capget64() are the way to go.  Any objections?

How is capget64() different from capget() that supports 2 different
header->versions (I thought that was the whole point of the versioned,
rather opaque interface)?  I don't object to a new syscall, but I don't
see why it's required to avoid breaking libcap.

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