Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@xxxxxxxxxx): > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 10:54 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@xxxxxxxxxx): > > > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 00:14 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > > Quoting Eric Paris (eparis@xxxxxxxxxx): > > > > > Currently we duplicate the mmap_min_addr test in cap_file_mmap and in > > > > > security_file_mmap if !CONFIG_SECURITY. This patch moves cap_file_mmap > > > > > into commoncap.c and then calls that function directly from > > > > > security_file_mmap ifndef CONFIG_SECURITY like all of the other capability > > > > > checks are done. > > > > > > > > It also > > > > > > > > 1. changes the return value in error case from -EACCES to > > > > -EPERM > > > > 2. no onger sets PF_SUPERPRIV in t->flags if the capability > > > > is used. > > > > > > > > Do we care about these? > > > > > > Personally, not really, but I'll gladly put them back if you care. #2 > > > seems more interesting to me than number 1. I actually kinda like > > > getting EPERM from caps rather than EACCES since them I know if I was > > > denied by selinux or by caps..... > > > > > > -Eric > > > > Yup, I asked bc I didn't particularly care myself. > > > > I think I agree with you about -EPERM being better anyway. However I > > (now) think in this case PF_SUPERPRIV definately should be set, as this > > is a clear use of a capability to do something that couldn't have been > > done without it. > > Easy enough, if I add PF_SUPERPRIV can I add your ACK? Basically just Yup. > ret = cap_capable(); > if (!ret) > current->flags |= PF_SUPERPRIV; > > return ret; Yup. (Maybe spell out 'if (ret == 0)' to help people keep straight that 0 means ok with cap_capable(), but it's up to you) thanks, -serge -- 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.
