From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from crystal.sipsolutions.net ([195.210.38.204]:56702 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753233AbXGJM5b (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:57:31 -0400 Subject: Re: Permissions down /sys From: Johannes Berg To: Michael Buesch Cc: Andy Green , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200707092257.25909.mb@bu3sch.de> References: <469297DF.4000806@warmcat.com> <200707092257.25909.mb@bu3sch.de> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-pbn+9t+w9WL+CeQTzY4C" Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:57:49 +0200 Message-Id: <1184072269.15565.8.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-pbn+9t+w9WL+CeQTzY4C Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 22:57 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Monday 09 July 2007 22:17:35 Andy Green wrote: > > Hi folks - > >=20 > > Is 222 permissions on /sys/class/ieee80211/phy*/add_iface and > > remove_iface really okay, or should it perhaps be 220? > >=20 > > --w--w--w- 1 root root 0 2007-07-09 21:11 add_iface > > --w--w--w- 1 root root 4096 2007-07-09 21:12 remove_iface >=20 > IMO the file-permissions are correct, _but_ the following should > be added to _store_remove_iface() and _store_add_iface(): >=20 > if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN)) > return -EPERM; Uh huh, yes, of course. Do you have a patch? johannes --=-pbn+9t+w9WL+CeQTzY4C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iD8DBQBGk4JN/ETPhpq3jKURAnxRAJ9G79HFAAMpl8GdY8nLfGF3WqBfoQCffn0i hlB1ty6tMK/uCwZ5EpenEOQ= =Vgxv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-pbn+9t+w9WL+CeQTzY4C--