[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071017202014.6738cbb7.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:20:14 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Cc: "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
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:59:20 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com> wrote:
> Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@...ux-foundation.org):
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:41:59 -0500
> > "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > To properly test this the libcap code will need to be updated first,
> > > which I'm looking at now...
> >
> > This seems fairly significant. I asusme that this patch won't break
> > presently-deployed libcap?
>
> It will break libcap.
yikes, dropped!
> And I'm not sure of the right way to address it.
> So I was hoping to hear some ideas from Andrew Morgan, Chris Wright, and
> Kaigai.
>
> We can introduce new capget64() and capset64() calls, and have
> capget() return -EINVAL or -EAGAIN if a high bit would be needed to
> accurately get the task's capabilities.
>
> Or we can require a new libcap, since capget and capset aren't
> required for most day-to-day function anyway.
>
> I guess now that I've written this out, it seems pretty clear
> that capget64() and capget64() are the way to go. Any objections?
Sounds sane. New syscalls are cheap and it's clear separation.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists