Quoting Andrew Morton ([email protected]):
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:41:59 -0500
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]> 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. 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?
thanks,
-serge
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
