Hi Ravi, On Mon, Nov 25, 2013, Ravi kumar Veeramally wrote: > On 25.11.2013 16:01, Johan Hedberg wrote: > >Hi Ravi, > > > >On Mon, Nov 25, 2013, Ravi kumar Veeramally wrote: > >>CAP_NET_RAW capability is required to up the bnep interfaces > >>in android environment. > >>--- > >> android/main.c | 1 + > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >> > >>diff --git a/android/main.c b/android/main.c > >>index c9733f3..bfd2a87 100644 > >>--- a/android/main.c > >>+++ b/android/main.c > >>@@ -506,6 +506,7 @@ static bool set_capabilities(void) > >> header.pid = 0; > >> cap.effective = cap.permitted = > >>+ CAP_TO_MASK(CAP_NET_RAW) | > >> CAP_TO_MASK(CAP_NET_ADMIN) | > >> CAP_TO_MASK(CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE); > >> cap.inheritable = 0; > >Would you then say that commit 9bda7e8c2130de9a3340ebd0e6cc1dedc2eae338 > >is incorrect? A quick grep doesn't show any instances of checking this > >capability in the BNEP code of the kernel. Exactly which system call is > >it that needs it? > bnep_if_up from profiles/network/common.c > --- > ifr.ifr_flags |= IFF_UP; > ifr.ifr_flags |= IFF_MULTICAST; > > err = ioctl(sk, SIOCSIFFLAGS, (caddr_t) &ifr); > --- > requires this capability in android environment only. > this code is under android macro. So you've verified that under "normal" Linux this ioctl does not require the NET_RAW capability? > >If you answered positively to my first question, please send a patch for > >that as well. > I didn't understand this, sorry. My first question was: "Would you then say that commit 9bda7e8c2130de9a3340ebd0e6cc1dedc2eae338 is incorrect?". Do you not understand that question or what I asked you to do in case the answer is "yes"? Johan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
