On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:59:20 -0500 "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.
yikes, dropped!
> 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?
Sounds sane. New syscalls are cheap and it's clear separation.
-
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]
