Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Feb 2000 13:21:35 +0000 (GMT) | From | Chris Evans <> | Subject | Re: Capabilities |
| |
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> Ah, I wasn't aware that was possible. I had assumed that your > stat_data was rather fixed in size. > > That being the case, I would like: > > __u32 flags; /* ext2 compatible file flags */ > __u32 cap_allowed; /* allowed capabilities */ > __u32 cap_forced; /* forced capabilities */ > > If you can do that without breaking the disk format, then it > can wait for 2.5, otherwise I think it would make sense for > them to appear in 2.3 (assuming that the format has already > changed for the 2.3 port?).
See another mail I just sent. Looking at the future picture, we are using 28/32 capabilties. The rate at which we are finding "holes" in the capability list is admittedly small. However, I expect this to accelerate as people are starting to use capabilities to de-priv programs.
I would be happier with 64 bit (or greater) capability fields in any filesystem structures; it has the potential to save a lot of grief in the future.
Cheers Chris
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |