mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
To: Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>,
	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
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:50:26 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071018125026.GA10387@vino.hallyn.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071018052111.GQ3906@sequoia.sous-sol.org>

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

  reply	other threads:[~2007-10-18 12:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-10-16  2:27 [PATCH 1/2 -mm] capabilities: clean up file capability reading Serge E. Hallyn
2007-10-16  2:31 ` [RFC] [PATCH 2/2] capabilities: implement 64-bit capabilities Serge E. Hallyn
2007-10-16 14:18   ` Stephen Smalley
2007-10-16 18:48     ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-10-16 21:41     ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-10-18  1:00       ` Andrew Morton
2007-10-18  2:59         ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-10-18  3:13           ` Casey Schaufler
2007-10-18  3:20           ` Andrew Morton
2007-10-18  5:21           ` Chris Wright
2007-10-18 12:50             ` Serge E. Hallyn [this message]
2007-10-18 15:27               ` Andrew Morgan
2007-10-18 15:30                 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2007-10-18 15:30               ` Chris Wright

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20071018125026.GA10387@vino.hallyn.com \
    --to=serge@hallyn.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
    --cc=kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=morgan@kernel.org \
    --cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
    --cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®