Re: RFC: capabilities(7): notes for kernel developers

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>]

Quoting John Stultz (john.stultz@linaro.org):
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> wrote:
> > Quoting Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) (mtk.manpages@gmail.com):
> >> On 12/16/2016 01:44 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >> > On 12/15/2016 4:31 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Casey Schaufler
> >> >> <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> >> >>> On 12/15/2016 11:41 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >> >>>> On 12/15/2016 05:29 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >> >>>>> CAP_WAKE_ALARM could readily be CAP_TIME.
> >> >>>> Actually, I don't quite understand what you mean with that sentence.
> >> >>>> Could you elaborate?
> >> >>> Should have said CAP_SYS_TIME
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Setting an alarm could be considered a time management function,
> >> >>> depending on what it actually does.
> >> >> Just a nit here. CAP_WAKE_ALARM is more about the privilege of waking
> >> >> a system from suspend, while CAP_SYS_TIME covers the ability to set
> >> >> the time. One wouldn't necessarily want to give applications which
> >> >> could wake a system up the capability to also set the time.
> >> >
> >> > Doesn't really matter, except that an ignorant developer
> >> > might make the mistake I did and assume that WAKE_ALARM
> >> > was somehow related to time management. If you want to use
> >> > it as an example don't let my dunderheadedness get in your
> >> > way.
> >>
> >> Actually, I decided it wasn't such a good example anyway.
> >> That capability could potentially be generic. (But it probably
> >> should better have been named something like 'CAP_WAKE_SYSTEM'.)
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] capabilities: alias CAP_WAKE_SYSTEM to CAP_WAKE_ALARM
> >
> > As suggested by Michael Kerrisk his is a less confusing name, and
> > this won't break any old userspace.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
> > Cc: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  include/uapi/linux/capability.h | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/capability.h b/include/uapi/linux/capability.h
> > index fd4f87d..ba972ff 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/capability.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/capability.h
> > @@ -357,6 +357,8 @@ struct vfs_ns_cap_data {
> >
> >  #define CAP_WAKE_ALARM            35
> >
> > +#define CAP_WAKE_SYSTEM      CAP_WAKE_ALARM
> > +
> 
> I was thinking of the same thing. Although I might rename the
> numerical define to WAKE_SYSTEM and put WAKE_ALARM as the alias (along
> with a comment as to WAKE_ALARM being deprecated), so its more clear
> which is the one that ought to be used by new code.
> 
> However, in the spirit of this thread, we might even consider
> broadening the cap silo a bit further, to something like
> CAP_WAKE_SUSPEND, such that it might also be able to cover broader PM
> actions?

Or just CAP_UNSUSPEND?