From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>,
sds@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
morgan@kernel.org, chrisw@sous-sol.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp,
casey@schaufler-ca.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 2/2] capabilities: implement 64-bit capabilities
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:13:56 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <884804.13501.qm@web36614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071018025920.GA5067@vino.hallyn.com>
--- "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com> wrote:
> Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org):
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:41:59 -0500
> > "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > To properly test this the libcap code will need to be updated first,
> > > which I'm looking at now...
> >
> > This seems fairly significant. I asusme that this patch won't break
> > presently-deployed libcap?
>
> It will break libcap. And I'm not sure of the right way to address it.
> So I was hoping to hear some ideas from Andrew Morgan, Chris Wright, and
> Kaigai.
>
> We can introduce new capget64() and capset64() calls, and have
> capget() return -EINVAL or -EAGAIN if a high bit would be needed to
> accurately get the task's capabilities.
>
> Or we can require a new libcap, since capget and capset aren't
> required for most day-to-day function anyway.
>
> I guess now that I've written this out, it seems pretty clear
> that capget64() and capget64() are the way to go. Any objections?
Not from me. Thank you.
Casey Schaufler
casey@schaufler-ca.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-18 3:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-16 2:27 [PATCH 1/2 -mm] capabilities: clean up file capability reading Serge E. Hallyn
2007-10-16 2:31 ` [RFC] [PATCH 2/2] capabilities: implement 64-bit capabilities Serge E. Hallyn
2007-10-16 14:18 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-10-16 18:48 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-10-16 21:41 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-10-18 1:00 ` Andrew Morton
2007-10-18 2:59 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-10-18 3:13 ` Casey Schaufler [this message]
2007-10-18 3:20 ` Andrew Morton
2007-10-18 5:21 ` Chris Wright
2007-10-18 12:50 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-10-18 15:27 ` Andrew Morgan
2007-10-18 15:30 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-10-18 15:30 ` Chris Wright
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=884804.13501.qm@web36614.mail.mud.yahoo.com \
--to=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
--cc=kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=morgan@kernel.org \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.