On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:28:30PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>
> > > Well doing that breaks su.
> >
> > Don't what exactly? You're saying that doing
> >
> > pI' = pI
> > pA' = pA (pA is ambient)
> > pP' = (X & fP) | (pI & (fI | pA))
> > pE' = pP' & (fE | pA)
> >
> > stopped su from having CAP_SETGID while
> >
> > pI' = pI
> > pA' = pA (pA is ambient)
> > pP' = (X & fP) | (pI & (fI | pA))
> > pE' = pP' & fE
> >
> > worked? I'll hope you're saying both "fail", in which case
>
> fE does not exist in cpu_vfs_cap_data. We only get fI and fP. Why in the
> world does setcap allow setting fE?
It sets a bit in the magic_etc. So fE is either all on or all off.
> V1 does not use fE. In my newer attempt, I seemed to have worked
> with zeroed field that I assumed was filled in.
>
> I will just do
>
> pE' = pP'
>
> Ok?
Andrew Morgan was against that. What if we changed
pE' = pP' & (fE | pA)
to
if (pA)
pE' = pP' & fE
else
pE' = pP'
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
