Quoting Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:41:59 -0500 > "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? thanks, -serge - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
