From: Andrew Morgan <morgan@kernel.org>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>,
Andrew Morgan <agm@google.com>,
casey@schaufler-ca.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@google.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 14:29:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <468C1157.70905@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070702143816.GA17723@vino.hallyn.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> 1. Exactly Andrew describes. Once userspace switches to a new cap
> format, an older kernel simply won't support them
Mmm. Let me see. I think I prefer this one! :-)
> 2. As Andrew describes, but also encode the version number into the
> capability name, i.e. security.capability.v3. Now userspace can
> optionally tack on more than one capability version to be backward
> compatible.
If you have a significant legacy of use of earlier versions, I guess
this makes sense. However, given the experimental nature of this support
(it will be a while before the user space support for this is
secure/robust), I'm not all that concerned about legacy support.
> 3. Somewhat different than Andrew describes. We mandate that any
> capability version N+1 consist of
>
> struct vfs_cap_data {
> __u32 magic;
> capability_version_1;
> capability_version_2;
> ...
> capability_version_N;
> capability_version_N+1;
> };
Ugh. I don't like this. It presumes that the kernel will get more and
more complicated over time. Please don't do this one.
> Or, for brevity,
>
> struct vfs_cap_data {
> __u32 first_magic;
> __u32 last_magic;
> capability_version_first;
> ...
> capability_version_last;
> };
>
> 4. Stick to the current plan, where switching to 64-bit caps will be
> done as
>
> struct vfs_cap_data_disk {
> __le32 version;
> __le32 data[]; /* eff[0], perm[0], inh[0], eff[1], ... */
> };
While asserting that it is more flexible etc., no one has yet actually
given an example of where fE being richer than a simple binary helps
anything. Until I see an example, I'm going to hold the position that
this is needless "complexity".
Cheers
Andrew
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGjBFXmwytjiwfWMwRAofJAKCXX2GkN39o45fCQmxpNpZIEVH8EgCeLaDy
AoWZNj/1MqT7oayabxUhIn8=
=OSBu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-04 21:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20070611123714.GA2063@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <878322.98602.qm@web36606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
[not found] ` <afff21250706110926l244ddc28i44289cb08a6721e2@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20070617135239.GA17689@sergelap>
[not found] ` <4676007F.7060503@kernel.org>
[not found] ` <20070618044017.GW3723@sequoia.sous-sol.org>
[not found] ` <20070620171037.GA28670@sergelap.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <20070620174613.GF3723@sequoia.sous-sol.org>
2007-06-21 16:00 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-23 8:13 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Andrew Morgan
2007-06-24 15:51 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-24 16:18 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch James Morris
2007-06-24 20:58 ` [PATCH][RFC] security: Convert LSM into a static interface James Morris
2007-06-24 22:09 ` Chris Wright
2007-06-24 22:37 ` James Morris
2007-06-25 1:38 ` Chris Wright
2007-06-24 23:40 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-06-25 1:39 ` Chris Wright
2007-06-25 3:37 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-06-25 3:57 ` Chris Wright
2007-06-25 13:02 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-06-25 14:24 ` Roberto De Ioris
2007-06-25 4:33 ` [PATCH try #2] " James Morris
2007-06-25 4:48 ` Petr Vandrovec
2007-06-25 4:58 ` James Morris
2007-06-25 16:59 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-06-25 23:56 ` [PATCH try #3] " James Morris
2007-06-25 20:37 ` [PATCH try #2] " Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-06-25 21:14 ` James Morris
2007-06-26 3:57 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-26 13:15 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-06-26 14:06 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-26 14:59 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-06-26 15:53 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-26 18:52 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-06-26 18:18 ` Greg KH
2007-06-26 18:40 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-26 4:09 ` Kyle Moffett
2007-06-26 4:25 ` Kyle Moffett
2007-06-26 13:47 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-27 0:07 ` Kyle Moffett
2007-06-27 0:57 ` Crispin Cowan
2007-06-27 1:22 ` Kyle Moffett
2007-06-27 4:24 ` Chris Wright
2007-06-27 13:41 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-27 14:36 ` James Morris
2007-06-27 17:21 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-27 18:51 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-27 19:28 ` James Morris
2007-06-28 2:48 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-25 3:57 ` [PATCH][RFC] " Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-25 4:10 ` Chris Wright
2007-06-25 4:54 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-25 13:50 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-06-25 13:54 ` James Morris
2007-06-25 14:32 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-25 15:08 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-06-27 5:00 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Andrew Morgan
2007-06-27 13:16 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-28 6:19 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Andrew Morgan
2007-06-28 13:36 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-28 15:14 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Casey Schaufler
2007-06-28 15:38 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-28 15:56 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Casey Schaufler
2007-06-29 5:30 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Andrew Morgan
2007-06-29 13:24 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Serge E. Hallyn
2007-06-29 14:46 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Casey Schaufler
2007-06-28 15:50 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Andrew Morgan
2007-07-02 14:38 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Serge E. Hallyn
2007-07-04 21:29 ` Andrew Morgan [this message]
2007-07-04 23:00 ` implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch Casey Schaufler
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=468C1157.70905@kernel.org \
--to=morgan@kernel.org \
--cc=agm@google.com \
--cc=akpm@google.com \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.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