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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



--- "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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?

Not from me. Thank you.


Casey Schaufler
[email protected]
-
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]
  Powered by Linux