[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.1.10.0901051301590.14359@tundra.namei.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:07:00 +1100 (EST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CRED: Fix regression in cap_capable() as shown up by
sys_faccessat() [ver #2]
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, David Howells wrote:
>
> Here's an improved patch. It differentiates the use of objective and
> subjective capabilities by making capable() only check current's subjective
> caps, but making has_capability() check only the objective caps of whatever
> process is specified.
>
> It's a bit more involved, but I think it's the right thing to do.
I think it's the right approach, too, and the patch seems ok to me. I've
applied it to
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/security-testing-2.6#next
and expect to push it to Linus in the next day or so. It's not a trivial
change, and could do with more review (Serge?).
It seems that more testing should be done in linux-next vs. waiting for
the merge window.
- James
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
--
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