Re: [PATCH resend] define convenient securebits masks for prctl users

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>]

Quoting Stephen Rothwell (sfr@canb.auug.org.au):
> Hi Serge,
> 
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:02:36 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > [ Are there any objections to exporting securebits.h?  If not,
> > can this patch be pushed to linux-next? ]
> 
> I am not sure which tree this belongs in?  Maybe security-testing (James
> cc'd)?

I don't know why that didn't occur to me!  Thanks, I'll pursue
that :)

> > diff --git a/include/linux/securebits.h b/include/linux/securebits.h
> > index d2c5ed8..9ad109e 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/securebits.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/securebits.h
> > @@ -1,6 +1,13 @@
> >  #ifndef _LINUX_SECUREBITS_H
> >  #define _LINUX_SECUREBITS_H 1
> >  
> > +/* Each securesetting is implemented using two bits. One bit specifies
> > +   whether the setting is on or off. The other bit specify whether the
> > +   setting is locked or not. A setting which is locked cannot be
> > +   changed from user-level. */
> > +#define issecure_mask(X)	(1 << (X))
> > +#define issecure(X)		(issecure_mask(X) & current_cred_xxx(securebits))
> 
> You want this second define protected by ifdef __KERNEL__ ...

True, userspace doesn't need to see those.  Will sanitize and resend.

thanks,
-serge