Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Feb 2011 23:05:55 -0800 (PST) | From | david@lang ... | Subject | Re: CAP_SYSLOG, 2.6.38 and user space |
| |
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Gergely Nagy (algernon@balabit.hu): >> On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 16:05 +0000, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >>> Quoting Serge E. Hallyn (serge@hallyn.com): >>>>> From 2d7408541dd3a6e19a4265b028233789be6a40f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>>> From: Serge Hallyn <serge@peq.(none)> >>>> >>>> At 2.6.39 or 2.6.40, let's add a sysctl which defaults to 0. When >>>> 0, refuse if cap_sys_admin, if 1, then allow. This will allow >>>> users to acknowledge (permanently, if they must, using /etc/sysctl.conf) >>>> that they've seen the syslog message about cap_sys_admin being >>>> deprecated for syslog. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> > - goto warn; /* switch to return -EPERM after 2.6.39 */ > + !capable(CAP_SYSLOG)) { > + /* remove after 2.6.39 */ > + if (capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) > + WARN_ONCE(1, "Attempt to access syslog with CAP_SYS_ADMIN " > + "but no CAP_SYSLOG (deprecated).\n"); > + else > + return -EPERM; > + } > }
why does this need to be removed after 2.6.39?
whenever you go to remove it you will break userspace, what's the benifit of breaking userspace?
I can understand that it's better to have a syslog daemon with CAP_SYSLOG instead of CAP_SYS_ADMIN, but does "it would be better to have userspace changed" really translate into "it's so important to have userspace changed that we need to break any userspace that hasn't changed"?
I really don't think so.
David Lang
| |