lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-29 15:09    [W:0.037 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site