Re: [PATCH -v3 1/3] Capabilities: move cap_file_mmap to commoncap.c

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

Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@redhat.com):
> On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 10:54 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@redhat.com):
> > > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 00:14 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > > Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@redhat.com):
> > > > > Currently we duplicate the mmap_min_addr test in cap_file_mmap and in
> > > > > security_file_mmap if !CONFIG_SECURITY.  This patch moves cap_file_mmap
> > > > > into commoncap.c and then calls that function directly from
> > > > > security_file_mmap ifndef CONFIG_SECURITY like all of the other capability
> > > > > checks are done.
> > > > 
> > > > It also
> > > > 
> > > > 	1. changes the return value in error case from -EACCES to
> > > > 	   -EPERM
> > > > 	2. no onger sets PF_SUPERPRIV in t->flags if the capability
> > > > 	   is used.
> > > > 
> > > > Do we care about these?
> > > 
> > > Personally, not really, but I'll gladly put them back if you care.   #2
> > > seems more interesting to me than number 1.   I actually kinda like
> > > getting EPERM from caps rather than EACCES since them I know if I was
> > > denied by selinux or by caps.....
> > > 
> > > -Eric
> > 
> > Yup, I asked bc I didn't particularly care myself.
> > 
> > I think I agree with you about -EPERM being better anyway.  However I
> > (now) think in this case PF_SUPERPRIV definately should be set, as this
> > is a clear use of a capability to do something that couldn't have been
> > done without it.
> 
> Easy enough, if I add PF_SUPERPRIV can I add your ACK?  Basically just

Yup.

> ret = cap_capable();
> if (!ret)
> 	current->flags |= PF_SUPERPRIV;
> 
> return ret;

Yup.  (Maybe spell out 'if (ret == 0)' to help people keep straight
that 0 means ok with cap_capable(), but it's up to you)

thanks,
-serge