lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 05/10] user namespace: clamp down users of cap_raised
    From
    On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Serge E. Hallyn
    <serge.hallyn@canonical.com> wrote:
    > Quoting Andrew G. Morgan (morgan@kernel.org):
    >> Serge,
    >>
    >> It seems as if this whole thing is really idiomatic. How about?
    >>
    >> #define IN_ROOT_USER_NS_CAPABLE(cap)  \
    >>    ((current_user_ns() == &init_user_ns) && cap_raised(current_cap(), cap))
    >
    > My objection to this was that it seems to encourage others to use it :)  I'm
    > not sure we want that.  Also, IN_ROOT_USER_NS seems more generally useful.

    What is driving the choice of when its appropriate? How can a
    developer determine this? If you make it hard, presumably folk won't
    do it by default, but will that create a burdon on others to go round
    patching things like this up?

    > But if I'm the only one who feels this way I'll go ahead and do it...

    I'm more of a optimize for a human to read the source code (ie. debug
    a problem) kind of person. If IN_ROOT_USER_NS is useful, you could
    always define IN_ROOT_USER_NS_CAPABLE in terms of IN_ROOT_USER_NS &&
    ... and provide both.

    I guess I'm unclear, however, when you want developers to use one or
    the other variant of the basic capable() functionality. Since I'm not
    clear, I'm suspecting this is a fragile situation.

    Cheers

    Andrew
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-10-25 02:45    [W:0.020 / U:61.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site