Re: PATCH: signals security

James Mastros (
Thu, 21 May 1998 21:27:12 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 22 May 1998, Rik van Riel wrote:
> OK, I'll start adapting the iopl() and ioperm() functions
> to set the CAP_RAW_IO in cap_used, so we can know when a
> process has actually used this function.
Might it be better to change the capable function to automaticly set the
cap_used bit for what it was sent to check for? (Is there any place where
we use capable() without "using" the capablity? I think if we just want a
FYI value (for proc, etc.) we could/should read the value directly.) That
way, we would automaticly get the cap_used "for free" without changing
existing code.

> Then we just hope for the other architectures to set this
> bit too. (what do we do about 68k? they just mmap() the
> frame buffer, so maybe it's safe to kill the X server on
> that architecture?)

I seem to recall that the linux/m68k video subsystem was designed with
that specificly in mind.

-=- James Mastros

True mastery is knowing enough to bullshit the rest.
	-=- Me

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to