From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761449AbYENBBS (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2008 21:01:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757536AbYENBBF (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2008 21:01:05 -0400 Received: from sous-sol.org ([216.99.217.87]:38256 "EHLO sous-sol.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757445AbYENBBE (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2008 21:01:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 17:52:38 -0700 From: Chris Wright To: KaiGai Kohei Cc: Chris Wright , greg@kroah.com, morgan@kernel.org, serue@us.ibm.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] exporting capability name/code pairs (for 2.6.26) Message-ID: <20080514005238.GZ17453@sequoia.sous-sol.org> References: <47C25AE9.7080305@ak.jp.nec.com> <480DC80F.3060403@ak.jp.nec.com> <20080423053726.GF3861@localhost.localdomain> <480EE1F6.3070205@ak.jp.nec.com> <482A33FA.5030109@ak.jp.nec.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <482A33FA.5030109@ak.jp.nec.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * KaiGai Kohei (kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote: > Chris, what is the status of the patch? I still don't understand how ... >> When we run a userspace utility on the latest kernel, it has to be compiled >> with kernel-headers which have same capability set at least. >> If installed userspace utility does not support newly added capabilities, >> it requires users to rebuild their utilities when they update the kernel. >> >> Typically, kernel developer faces this kind of version mismatching. >> When they boots their kernel with new capabilities, it also requires to >> rebuild libcap. Then, they have to revert it, when they boots with normal >> kernel. >> >> If libcap can know what capabilities are supported on the running kernel >> automatically, it does not need users to rebuild libcap concurrently. ...libcap can do anything meaningful here with capabilities it doesn't know about? This interface is already versioned, what is wrong is old cap version on new kernel (clearly new cap version on old kernel would have to fall back to older cap version)? thanks, -chris