[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1248968428.2597.79.camel@localhost>
Date:	Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:40:28 -0400
From:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
	jwcart2@...ho.nsa.gov, sds@...ho.nsa.gov, spender@...ecurity.net,
	dwalsh@...hat.com, cl@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...radead.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, kees@...flux.net, csellers@...sys.com,
	penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3 1/3] Capabilities: move cap_file_mmap to commoncap.c
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 00:14 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@...hat.com):
> > Currently we duplicate the mmap_min_addr test in cap_file_mmap and in
> > security_file_mmap if !CONFIG_SECURITY.  This patch moves cap_file_mmap
> > into commoncap.c and then calls that function directly from
> > security_file_mmap ifndef CONFIG_SECURITY like all of the other capability
> > checks are done.
> 
> It also
> 
> 	1. changes the return value in error case from -EACCES to
> 	   -EPERM
> 	2. no onger sets PF_SUPERPRIV in t->flags if the capability
> 	   is used.
> 
> Do we care about these?
Personally, not really, but I'll gladly put them back if you care.   #2
seems more interesting to me than number 1.   I actually kinda like
getting EPERM from caps rather than EACCES since them I know if I was
denied by selinux or by caps.....
-Eric
--
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
 
