From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755002AbaDOOAW (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:00:22 -0400 Received: from mano-163-55-shared.jabatus.fr ([109.234.163.55]:58894 "EHLO mano-163-55-shared.jabatus.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751301AbaDOOAN (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:00:13 -0400 X-MailPropre-MailScanner-From: ecolbus@manux.info X-MailPropre-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=0, required 5, autolearn=not spam) X-MailPropre-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details X-MailPropre-MailScanner-ID: 7AA438F62607.A0535 X-MailPropre-MailScanner-Information: Message sortant - Serveurs o2switch Message-ID: <534D3769.9070309@manux.info> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:43:05 +0200 From: Emmanuel Colbus User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131104 Icedove/17.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [RFC][7/11][MANUX] Kernel compatibility : capset(2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Now another syscall. I recently implemented capabilities, and decided to use a version number that's different from the one Linux uses. I guess that's exactly how I should have done it, but can you confirm me that this is acceptable? Also, for your information, I decided to use 64-bit capabilities, in order to give a possibility to reduce the rights of an unprivileged software (for example, if a process lacks CAP_USR_CHMOD, it won't be able to perform a chmod on an existing file). This means I'm not using the same data structure as you; do you have any objection to it? Thank you, Emmanuel