linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] exporting capability name/code pairs (for 2.6.26)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20080513221227.GA7164@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru>
Date:	Wed, 14 May 2008 02:12:27 +0400
From:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:	KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@...jp.nec.com>
Cc:	greg@...ah.com, morgan@...nel.org, serue@...ibm.com,
	chrisw@...s-sol.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] exporting capability name/code pairs (for 2.6.26)

>> You claim that libcap people can't or don't want to parse such file?
>
> Yes,
> In the previous discussion, it was undesirable idea to parse a file
> to obtain a new/unknown capability name/code pair, because it tends
> to have bigger number and appears at the tail.
> (If my brain memories it correctly.)
>
>> 0	CAP_CHOWN
>> 1	CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE
>> 2	CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH
>> 3	CAP_FOWNER
>> 4	CAP_FSETID
>> 5	CAP_KILL
>> 6	CAP_SETGID
>> 7	CAP_SETUID
>> 8	CAP_SETPCAP
>> 9	CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE
>> 10	CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE
>> 11	CAP_NET_BROADCAST
>> 12	CAP_NET_ADMIN
>> 13	CAP_NET_RAW
>> 14	CAP_IPC_LOCK
>> 15	CAP_IPC_OWNER
>> 16	CAP_SYS_MODULE
>> 17	CAP_SYS_RAWIO
>> 18	CAP_SYS_CHROOT
>> 19	CAP_SYS_PTRACE
>> 20	CAP_SYS_PACCT
>> 21	CAP_SYS_ADMIN
>> 22	CAP_SYS_BOOT
>> 23	CAP_SYS_NICE
>> 24	CAP_SYS_RESOURCE
>> 25	CAP_SYS_TIME
>> 26	CAP_SYS_TTY_CONFIG
>> 27	CAP_MKNOD
>> 28	CAP_LEASE
>> 29	CAP_AUDIT_WRITE
>> 30	CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL
>> 31	CAP_SETFCAP
>> 32	CAP_MAC_OVERRIDE
>> 33	CAP_MAC_ADMIN
>> That's what you claim? Do I undestand you correctly?
>
> Yes, but I don't *oppose* your approach. :)
>
> BTW, I think "version" info should be included as follows:
>   0x20071026  vesion
>   0 cap_chown
>   1 cap_dac_override
>   :    :

It shouldn't. You can do capget(42, ...);, get EINVAL and current
version written back.

Wrap this in libcap if needed.

--
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/