[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081113145316.e53858bd.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:53:16 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sct@...hat.com, adilger@....com,
tytso@....edu, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, dedekind@...radead.org,
ext-adrian.hunter@...ia.com, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
dushistov@...l.ru, jmorris@...ei.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] filesystems: use has_capability_noaudit interface for
reserved blocks checks
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:12:49 -0500
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com> wrote:
> ext[2,3,4], ufs, and ubifs all check for CAP_SYS_RESOURCE to determine
> if they should allow reserved blocks to be used. A process not having
> this capability is not failing some security decision and should not be
> audited. Thus move to using has_capability_noaudit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
> ---
>
> I would like to push this patch through the security tree (since that's
> the only place the new cap_noaudit interface exists), but I'd like to
> get an ACK from each subsystem maintainer.
OK by me.
Whoever added has_capability_noaudit() forgot to document it, so the
difference between has_capability_noaudit() and has_capability() eludes
this reader.
--
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