lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] capabilities: introduce per-process capability bounding set (v10)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> Serge,
>
> Please tell me the meanings of the following condition.
>
>> diff --git a/security/commoncap.c b/security/commoncap.c
>> index 3a95990..cb71bb0 100644
>> --- a/security/commoncap.c
>> +++ b/security/commoncap.c
>> @@ -133,6 +119,12 @@ int cap_capset_check (struct task_struct *target,
>> kernel_cap_t *effective,
>> /* incapable of using this inheritable set */
>> return -EPERM;
>> }
>> + if (!!cap_issubset(*inheritable,
>> + cap_combine(target->cap_inheritable,
>> + current->cap_bset))) {
>> + /* no new pI capabilities outside bounding set */
>> + return -EPERM;
>> + }
>>
>> /* verify restrictions on target's new Permitted set */
>> if (!cap_issubset (*permitted,
>
> It seems to me this condition requires the new inheritable capability
> set must have a capability more than bounding set, at least.
> What is the purpose of this checking?

Yes, the !! was a bug. The correct check is a single !.

(Thus, the correct check says no 'new' pI bits can be outside cap_bset.)

Cheers

Andrew

>
> In the initial state, any process have no inheritable capability set
> and full bounding set. Thus, we cannot do capset() always.
>
> Thanks,

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHVPBS+bHCR3gb8jsRAnxQAJ0Vna82bl9M11OL/uuEe21nF5+9TACfSzGi
aY0SUvMmLZCIF0KovBTpihE=
=wT9N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-12-04 07:17    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans