* Serge E. Hallyn ([email protected]) wrote:
> Quoting Chris Wright ([email protected]):
> > * Serge E. Hallyn ([email protected]) 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.
It's not really any different than issuing capget(0x19980330) (assuming
capget64 is different), and getting -EINVAL when the actual in-use
caps are > 32 bits wide. In either case the rules are the same --
old interface works fine as long as you don't have new caps involved.
Only advantage I see to using the extant interface is that the cap[sg]et
interface is already designed to be future-proof (albeit in an unusual
way compared with most other kernel syscalls).
thanks,
-chris
-
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]
