On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 06:46:12PM -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 2/27/2023 5:14 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 7:56 AM Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> +static inline bool cap_isidentical(const kernel_cap_t a, const kernel_cap_t b)
> >> +{
> >> + unsigned __capi;
> >> + CAP_FOR_EACH_U32(__capi) {
> >> + if (a.cap[__capi] != b.cap[__capi])
> >> + return false;
> >> + }
> >> + return true;
> >> +}
> >> +
> > Side note, and this is not really related to this particular patch
> > other than because it just brought up the issue once more..
> >
> > Our "kernel_cap_t" thing is disgusting.
> >
> > It's been a structure containing
> >
> > __u32 cap[_KERNEL_CAPABILITY_U32S];
> >
> > basically forever, and it's not likely to change in the future. I
> > would object to any crazy capability expansion, considering how
> > useless and painful they've been anyway, and I don't think anybody
> > really is even remotely planning anything like that anyway.
> >
> > And what is _KERNEL_CAPABILITY_U32S anyway? It's the "third version"
> > of that size:
> >
> > #define _KERNEL_CAPABILITY_U32S _LINUX_CAPABILITY_U32S_3
> >
> > which happens to be the same number as the second version of said
> > #define, which happens to be "2".
> >
> > In other words, that fancy array is just 64 bits. And we'd probably be
> > better off just treating it as such, and just doing
> >
> > typedef u64 kernel_cap_t;
> >
> > since we have to do the special "convert from user space format"
> > _anyway_, and this isn't something that is shared to user space as-is.
> >
> > Then that "cap_isidentical()" would literally be just "a == b" instead
> > of us playing games with for-loops that are just two wide, and a
> > compiler that may or may not realize.
> >
> > It would literally remove some of the insanity in <linux/capability.h>
> > - look for CAP_TO_MASK() and CAP_TO_INDEX and CAP_FS_MASK_B0 and
> > CAP_FS_MASK_B1 and just plain ugliness that comes from this entirely
> > historical oddity.
> >
> > Yes, yes, we started out having it be a single-word array, and yes,
> > the code is written to think that it might some day be expanded past
> > the two words it then in 2008 it expanded to two words and 64 bits.
> > And now, fifteen years later, we use 40 of those 64 bits, and
> > hopefully we'll never add another one.
>
> I agree that the addition of 24 more capabilities is unlikely. The
> two reasons presented recently for adding capabilities are to implement
> boutique policies (CAP_MYHARDWAREISSPECIAL) or to break up CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
FWIW IMO breaking up CAP_SYS_ADMIN is a good thing, so long as we continue
to do it in the "you can use either CAP_SYS_ADMIN or CAP_NEW_FOO" way.
But there haven't been many such patchsets :)
> Neither of these is sustainable with a finite number of capabilities, nor
> do they fit the security model capabilities implement. It's possible that
> a small number of additional capabilities will be approved, but even that
> seems unlikely.
>
>
> > So we have historical reasons for why our kernel_cap_t is so odd. But
> > it *is* odd.
> >
> > Hmm?
>
> I don't see any reason that kernel_cap_t shouldn't be a u64. If by some
> amazing change in mindset we develop need for 65 capabilities, someone can
> dredge up the old code, shout "I told you so!" and put it back the way it
> was. Or maybe by then we'll have u128, and can just switch to that.
>
> > Linus
