On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 11:28 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@xxxxxxxxxx): > > > Perhaps we should have CAP_TO_INDEX mask itself? > > > > > > #define CAP_TO_INDEX(x) (((x) >> 5) & _KERNEL_CAPABILITY_U32S) > > > > Well, you save a branch and won't get the pagefault so it does 'fix' the > > pagefault/panic from cap code. It doesn't tell us when others screw up > > and SELinux is still possibly going to BUG(). We are also going to > > actually be returning a permission decision not on what was requested > > but on something wholely different. > > So exactly what was requested? A capability that they cannot possibly have since it doesn't exist :) > > I like mine better, but I'm ok with yours and can just do my changes in > > SELinux if this is how cap wants to handle it. I don't really like the > > Heh I don't like either one, just thought this would reduce the overhead > a bit :) No argument from me that patching up for buggy drivers sucks. Yours would be less overhead, and it would return the cap system back to pre-2.6.25 operation (garbage in garbage out but no panic). Since we already have the branch in SELinux its no 'extra' overhead to EPERM there instead of here (garbage in EPERM out). -Eric -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
