Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763683AbXJRMum (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:50:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756402AbXJRMuc (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:50:32 -0400 Received: from smtp107.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com ([68.142.229.98]:42216 "HELO smtp107.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754255AbXJRMub (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:50:31 -0400 X-YMail-OSG: 9JMgXtgVM1mVmiXW8TVZ4ONby3wE1ZplJIA0uvVpMQ7b2t9rKicUG8QwhrCnChRFwcJbiY_USA-- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:50:26 -0500 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Chris Wright Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , Andrew Morton , "Serge E. Hallyn" , sds@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, morgan@kernel.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: <20071018125026.GA10387@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> <20071018025920.GA5067@vino.hallyn.com> <20071018052111.GQ3906@sequoia.sous-sol.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071018052111.GQ3906@sequoia.sous-sol.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: 1099 Lines: 24 Quoting Chris Wright (chrisw@sous-sol.org): > * Serge E. Hallyn (serge@hallyn.com) 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. 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/