> Quoting Andrew Morton (
akpm@linux-foundation.org):
> > 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?
