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

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

Date:	Wed, 14 May 2008 09:34:20 +0900
From:	KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@...jp.nec.com>
To:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.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)

Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>>> 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.

libcap is the primary user of the facility to export capability
name/code pairs. I think obviously libcap should wrap this version
info and hide it from applications/users.

Thanks,
-- 
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@...jp.nec.com>
--
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/