Re: [RFC] [PATCH] file posix capabilities
From: Nicholas Miell
Date: Tue Aug 15 2006 - 15:28:37 EST
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 07:20 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Serge E. Hallyn (serge@xxxxxxxxxx):
> > > Make it an arbitrary length bitfield with a defined byte order (little
> > > endian, probably). Bits at offsets greater than the length of the
> > > bitfield are defined to be zero. If the kernel encounters a set bit that
> > > it doesn't recognizes, fail with EPERM. If userspace attempts to set a
> > > bit that the kernel doesn't recognize, fail with EINVAL.
> > >
> > > It's extensible (as new capability bits are added, the length of the
> > > bitfield grows), backward compatible (as long as there are no unknown
> > > bits set, it'll still work) and secure (if an unknown bit is set, the
> > > kernel fails immediately, so there's no chance of a "secure" app running
> > > with less privileges than it expects and opening up a security hole).
> > Sounds good.
> > The version number will imply the bitfield length, or do we feel warm
> > fuzzies if the length is redundantly encoded in the structure?
> nm, 'encoded in the structure' clearly is silly.
There isn't really a version number, just recognized and unrecognized
capability bits. If you wanted, you could use a single byte to give a
binary CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE, with capability bits 8-30 being "stored" in
not-present bytes and therefore assumed to be zero.
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/