Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763940AbXJRP2j (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:28:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932973AbXJRP1q (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:27:46 -0400 Received: from twinlark.arctic.org ([207.29.250.54]:53269 "EHLO twinlark.arctic.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933370AbXJRP1o (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:27:44 -0400 Message-ID: <47177B65.7040408@kernel.org> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:27:33 -0700 From: Andrew Morgan User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Serge E. Hallyn" CC: Chris Wright , Andrew Morton , "Serge E. Hallyn" , sds@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-security-module@vger.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 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> <20071018125026.GA10387@vino.hallyn.com> In-Reply-To: <20071018125026.GA10387@vino.hallyn.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1901 Lines: 50 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > 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. [I'm just wading back into a mass of neglected email. Long story.] Chris is right, this is precisely why the interface is versioned, and there is at least one version of libcap that was written to support this versioning scheme cvs -z3 - -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.linux-privs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/linux-privs co -r libcap-pre2 libcap I'll try and unwind all the threads of email I've been neglecting and have something useful to say over the next few days. Cheers Andrew -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHF3tj+bHCR3gb8jsRAhF1AJ9gfmUnO+O0YyzPLaqGVv++pZjvdgCgzz3J +yF6CRASj8QVYArDydc84k8= =K/Wb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - 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/