Messages in this thread | | | From | Mike Waychison <> | Date | Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:42:11 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] run-init: Add drop_capabilities support. |
| |
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Maximilian Attems <max@stro.at> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Mike Waychison wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Maximilian Attems <max@stro.at> wrote: >> > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011, Mike Waychison wrote: >> > >> >> This patch adds the ability to run-init to allow the dropping of >> >> POSIX capabilities. >> >> >> >> This works by adding a "-d" flag to run-init, which takes a comma >> >> separated list of capability names that should be dropped right before >> >> exec'ing the real init binary. >> >> >> >> kinit is also modified by this change, such that it understands the same >> >> argument when prepended with "drop_capabilities=" on the kernel command >> >> line. >> >> >> >> When processing capabilities to drop, CAP_SETPCAP is special cased to be >> >> dropped last, so that the order that capabilities are given does not >> >> cause dropping of later enumerated capabilities to fail if it is listed >> >> early on. >> >> >> >> Dropping of capabilities happens in three parts. We explicitly drop the >> >> capability from init's inherited, permitted and effective masks. We >> >> also drop the capability from the bounding set using PR_CAPBSET_DROP. >> >> Lastly, if available, we drop the capabilities from the bset and >> >> inheritted masks exposed at /proc/sys/kernel/usermodehelper if available >> >> (introduced in v3.0.0). >> > >> > hmm as 3.0 is out, I don't think we need more backward compatibility. >> > do you have a strong arg for it? >> > especially since this is an *optional* calling arg I really don't see >> > the need of that backward crap. >> >> I'd like to keep it for the time being. I'm still building both 2.6.34 >> and 2.6.39 kernels at the moment, though I can maintain these last few >> compatibility bits in-house if that makes it easier for you. > > you include anyway linux/version.h, would build disabling help you? > that way that macro doesn't need duplicating. >
For correctness sake, I think it's still a runtime check thing (consider the case of an image that is reused between kernel builds).
Reflecting on it a bit more though, I'd be okay if we removed the version check altogether and just made it warn if the file isn't present. -- 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/
| |