Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org):
quoted text
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:41:59 -0500
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > To properly test this the libcap code will need to be updated first,
> > which I'm looking at now...
> 
> This seems fairly significant.  I asusme that this patch won't break
> presently-deployed libcap?

It will break libcap.  And I'm not sure of the right way to address it.
So I was hoping to hear some ideas from Andrew Morgan, Chris Wright, and
Kaigai.

We can introduce new capget64() and capset64() calls, and have
capget() return -EINVAL or -EAGAIN if a high bit would be needed to
accurately get the task's capabilities.

Or we can require a new libcap, since capget and capset aren't
required for most day-to-day function anyway.

I guess now that I've written this out, it seems pretty clear
that capget64() and capget64() are the way to go.  Any objections?

thanks,
-serge
-
unsubscribe notice
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/