* Serge E. Hallyn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Quoting Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > * Serge E. Hallyn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > I guess now that I've written this out, it seems pretty clear
> > > that capget64() and capget64() are the way to go. Any objections?
> >
> > How is
Quoting Andrew Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >> * Serge E. Hallyn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >>> I guess now that I've written this out, it seems pretty clear
> >>> that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> * Serge E. Hallyn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>> I guess now that I've written this out, it seems pretty clear
>>> that capget64() and capget64() are the way to go. Any objections?
Quoting Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> * Serge E. Hallyn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I guess now that I've written this out, it seems pretty clear
> > that capget64() and capget64() are the way to go. Any objections?
>
> How is capget64() different from capget() that supports 2 different
Quoting Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
* Serge E. Hallyn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I guess now that I've written this out, it seems pretty clear
that capget64() and capget64() are the way to go. Any objections?
How is capget64() different from capget() that supports 2 different
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
* Serge E. Hallyn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I guess now that I've written this out, it seems pretty clear
that capget64() and capget64() are the way to go. Any objections?
How is
Quoting Andrew Morgan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
* Serge E. Hallyn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I guess now that I've written this out, it seems pretty clear
that capget64() and
* Serge E. Hallyn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Quoting Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
* Serge E. Hallyn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I guess now that I've written this out, it seems pretty clear
that capget64() and capget64() are the way to go. Any objections?
How is capget64()
* Serge E. Hallyn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I guess now that I've written this out, it seems pretty clear
> that capget64() and capget64() are the way to go. Any objections?
How is capget64() different from capget() that supports 2 different
header->versions (I thought that was the whole
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:59:20 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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,
> >
--- "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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...
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
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?
-
To unsubscribe
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?
-
To unsubscribe from
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
--- Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:59:20 -0500 Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
* Serge E. Hallyn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I guess now that I've written this out, it seems pretty clear
that capget64() and capget64() are the way to go. Any objections?
How is capget64() different from capget() that supports 2 different
header-versions (I thought that was the whole point
> > Subject: [RFC] [PATCH 2/2] capabilities: implement 64-bit capabilities
> >
> > We are out of capabilities in the 32-bit capability fields, and
> > several users could make use of additional capabilities.
> > Convert the capabilities to 64-bits, change the cap
> > Subject: [RFC] [PATCH 2/2] capabilities: implement 64-bit capabilities
> >
> > We are out of capabilities in the 32-bit capability fields, and
> > several users could make use of additional capabilities.
> > Convert the capabilities to 64-bits, change the cap
On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 21:31 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >From 7dd503c612afcb86b3165602ab264e2e9493b4bf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Serge E. Hallyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:57:52 -0400
> Subject: [RFC] [PATCH 2/2] capabilities: implement 64-bit
On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 21:31 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
From 7dd503c612afcb86b3165602ab264e2e9493b4bf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:57:52 -0400
Subject: [RFC] [PATCH 2/2] capabilities: implement 64-bit capabilities
We are out
] capabilities: implement 64-bit capabilities
We are out of capabilities in the 32-bit capability fields, and
several users could make use of additional capabilities.
Convert the capabilities to 64-bits, change the capability
version number accordingly, and convert the file capability
code
] capabilities: implement 64-bit capabilities
We are out of capabilities in the 32-bit capability fields, and
several users could make use of additional capabilities.
Convert the capabilities to 64-bits, change the capability
version number accordingly, and convert the file capability
code
>From 7dd503c612afcb86b3165602ab264e2e9493b4bf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Serge E. Hallyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:57:52 -0400
Subject: [RFC] [PATCH 2/2] capabilities: implement 64-bit capabilities
We are out of capabilities in the 32-bit capability fields, an
From 7dd503c612afcb86b3165602ab264e2e9493b4bf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:57:52 -0400
Subject: [RFC] [PATCH 2/2] capabilities: implement 64-bit capabilities
We are out of capabilities in the 32-bit capability fields, and
several users
26 matches
Mail list logo
