[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <482A33FA.5030109@ak.jp.nec.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 09:36:10 +0900
From: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@...jp.nec.com>
To: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
CC: greg@...ah.com, morgan@...nel.org, serue@...ibm.com,
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)
Chris, what is the status of the patch?
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> Chris Wright wrote:
>> * KaiGai Kohei (kaigai@...jp.nec.com) wrote:
>>> [PATCH 2/3] exporting capability name/code pairs
>>>
>>> This patch enables to export code/name pairs of capabilities the running
>>> kernel supported.
>>>
>>> A newer kernel sometimes adds new capabilities, like CAP_MAC_ADMIN
>>> at 2.6.25. However, we have no interface to disclose what capabilities
>>> are supported on the running kernel. Thus, we have to maintain libcap
>>> version in appropriate one synchronously.
>>>
>>> This patch enables libcap to collect the list of capabilities at run
>>> time,
>>> and provide them for users. It helps to improve portability of library.
>>>
>>> It exports these information as regular files under
>>> /sys/kernel/capability.
>>> The numeric node exports its name, the symbolic node exports its code.
>>
>> I do not understand why this is necessary. The capability bits are an
>> ABI
>> that shouldn't change in a non-backward compat way (i.e. only additions).
>>
>> We typically don't export strings <-> number conversions for constants.
>> I know you've explained this a few times before, but it still seems to me
>> like a userspace only problem. What can userspace do with a capability
>> it does not know about?
>
> When we run a userspace utility on the latest kernel, it has to be compiled
> with kernel-headers which have same capability set at least.
> If installed userspace utility does not support newly added capabilities,
> it requires users to rebuild their utilities when they update the kernel.
>
> Typically, kernel developer faces this kind of version mismatching.
> When they boots their kernel with new capabilities, it also requires to
> rebuild libcap. Then, they have to revert it, when they boots with normal
> kernel.
>
> If libcap can know what capabilities are supported on the running kernel
> automatically, it does not need users to rebuild libcap concurrently.
>
> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists