Re: [RFC] [PATCH 2/2] capabilities: implement 64-bit capabilities

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:59:20 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:41:59 -0500
> > "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.

yikes, dropped!

>  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?

Sounds sane.  New syscalls are cheap and it's clear separation.
-
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/