Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:05:47 -0500 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH resend] define convenient securebits masks for prctl users |
| |
Quoting Stephen Rothwell (sfr@canb.auug.org.au): > Hi Serge, > > On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:02:36 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > [ Are there any objections to exporting securebits.h? If not, > > can this patch be pushed to linux-next? ] > > I am not sure which tree this belongs in? Maybe security-testing (James > cc'd)?
I don't know why that didn't occur to me! Thanks, I'll pursue that :)
> > diff --git a/include/linux/securebits.h b/include/linux/securebits.h > > index d2c5ed8..9ad109e 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/securebits.h > > +++ b/include/linux/securebits.h > > @@ -1,6 +1,13 @@ > > #ifndef _LINUX_SECUREBITS_H > > #define _LINUX_SECUREBITS_H 1 > > > > +/* Each securesetting is implemented using two bits. One bit specifies > > + whether the setting is on or off. The other bit specify whether the > > + setting is locked or not. A setting which is locked cannot be > > + changed from user-level. */ > > +#define issecure_mask(X) (1 << (X)) > > +#define issecure(X) (issecure_mask(X) & current_cred_xxx(securebits)) > > You want this second define protected by ifdef __KERNEL__ ...
True, userspace doesn't need to see those. Will sanitize and resend.
thanks, -serge
| |