From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
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 20:20:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071017202014.6738cbb7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071018025920.GA5067@vino.hallyn.com>
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:59:20 -0500 "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.
yikes, dropped!
> 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?
Sounds sane. New syscalls are cheap and it's clear separation.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-18 3:26 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
2007-10-18 3:20 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
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=20071017202014.6738cbb7.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox