Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764626AbXJRC7h (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:59:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760746AbXJRC71 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:59:27 -0400 Received: from smtp113.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.212]:33502 "HELO smtp113.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1760869AbXJRC7Z (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:59:25 -0400 X-YMail-OSG: 6yWZ74IVM1lWi3Cj8JQiz._ylYZiW4bbO2k23s9KV3Pfaqt_wAjWFEUYoc2xF3TabQJq.zKevw-- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:59:20 -0500 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Andrew Morton Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , sds@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, morgan@kernel.org, chrisw@sous-sol.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp, casey@schaufler-ca.com Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 2/2] capabilities: implement 64-bit capabilities Message-ID: <20071018025920.GA5067@vino.hallyn.com> References: <20071016022730.GA8925@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20071016023100.GA10698@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <1192544299.8702.78.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20071016214159.GB13294@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20071017180002.33fe4986.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071017180002.33fe4986.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1171 Lines: 31 Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org): > On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:41:59 -0500 > "Serge E. Hallyn" 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/