linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] file capabilities: clean up setcap code

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: <20080927134307.GA11943@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Sat, 27 Sep 2008 08:43:07 -0500
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To:	"Andrew G. Morgan" <morgan@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] file capabilities: clean up setcap code

Quoting Andrew G. Morgan (morgan@...nel.org):
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Serge,
> 
> I have to say I'm a bit confused by this one. Specifically, the
> cap_get_target_pid() change. In your 5/6 patch, you say this change
> ("the previous patch") makes the kernel bigger? Is this because of the
> cap_get_target_pid() changes? Since you are fighting to reduce space, if
> it bloats the code does the cap_get_target_pid() part of the change make
> sense?

Yes I think it does.  Yes my goal was to decrease the kernel size, but
having cleaner code - and getting rid of dead codepaths - is more
important.

It may be hard to tell by looking at the patch, but I think the
end-result is really far better.

thanks,
-serge
--
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/