Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 May 2008 09:34:20 +0900 | From | KaiGai Kohei <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/3] exporting capability name/code pairs (for 2.6.26) |
| |
Alexey Dobriyan wrote: >>> You claim that libcap people can't or don't want to parse such file? >> Yes, >> In the previous discussion, it was undesirable idea to parse a file >> to obtain a new/unknown capability name/code pair, because it tends >> to have bigger number and appears at the tail. >> (If my brain memories it correctly.) >> >>> 0 CAP_CHOWN >>> 1 CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE >>> 2 CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH >>> 3 CAP_FOWNER >>> 4 CAP_FSETID >>> 5 CAP_KILL >>> 6 CAP_SETGID >>> 7 CAP_SETUID >>> 8 CAP_SETPCAP >>> 9 CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE >>> 10 CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE >>> 11 CAP_NET_BROADCAST >>> 12 CAP_NET_ADMIN >>> 13 CAP_NET_RAW >>> 14 CAP_IPC_LOCK >>> 15 CAP_IPC_OWNER >>> 16 CAP_SYS_MODULE >>> 17 CAP_SYS_RAWIO >>> 18 CAP_SYS_CHROOT >>> 19 CAP_SYS_PTRACE >>> 20 CAP_SYS_PACCT >>> 21 CAP_SYS_ADMIN >>> 22 CAP_SYS_BOOT >>> 23 CAP_SYS_NICE >>> 24 CAP_SYS_RESOURCE >>> 25 CAP_SYS_TIME >>> 26 CAP_SYS_TTY_CONFIG >>> 27 CAP_MKNOD >>> 28 CAP_LEASE >>> 29 CAP_AUDIT_WRITE >>> 30 CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL >>> 31 CAP_SETFCAP >>> 32 CAP_MAC_OVERRIDE >>> 33 CAP_MAC_ADMIN >>> That's what you claim? Do I undestand you correctly? >> Yes, but I don't *oppose* your approach. :) >> >> BTW, I think "version" info should be included as follows: >> 0x20071026 vesion >> 0 cap_chown >> 1 cap_dac_override >> : : > > It shouldn't. You can do capget(42, ...);, get EINVAL and current > version written back. > > Wrap this in libcap if needed.
libcap is the primary user of the facility to export capability name/code pairs. I think obviously libcap should wrap this version info and hide it from applications/users.
Thanks, -- OSS Platform Development Division, NEC KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>
| |