Re: [RFC] [PATCH 2/2] capabilities: implement 64-bit capabilities

[Andrew Morgan <morgan@kernel.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Chris Wright (chrisw@sous-sol.org):
>> * Serge E. Hallyn (serge@hallyn.com) wrote:
>>> I guess now that I've written this out, it seems pretty clear
>>> that capget64() and capget64() are the way to go.  Any objections?
>> How is capget64() different from capget() that supports 2 different
>> header->versions (I thought that was the whole point of the versioned,
>> rather opaque interface)?  I don't object to a new syscall, but I don't
>> see why it's required to avoid breaking libcap.
> 
> Hmm, I guess it *works*, it's just harder to explain the "inconsistent"
> behavior.  Now instead of saying "capget() will fail under certain
> conditions while capget64() will always succeed", capget() will actually
> fail under certain conditions only if you send in a certain header.
> 
> Again, once I've written it out, I guess it isn't *so* bad.

[I'm just wading back into a mass of neglected email. Long story.]

Chris is right, this is precisely why the interface is versioned, and
there is at least one version of libcap that was written to support this
versioning scheme

cvs -z3
- -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.linux-privs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/linux-privs
co -r libcap-pre2 libcap

I'll try and unwind all the threads of email I've been neglecting and
have something useful to say over the next few days.

Cheers

Andrew

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHF3tj+bHCR3gb8jsRAhF1AJ9gfmUnO+O0YyzPLaqGVv++pZjvdgCgzz3J
+yF6CRASj8QVYArDydc84k8=
=K/Wb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----