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
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:17:40PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
At random:
+static int smack_netlabel(struct sock *sk)
+{
+ static int initialized;
+ struct socket_smack *ssp = sk-sk_security;
+ struct netlbl_lsm_secattr secattr;
+ int rc = 0;
+
+ if (!initialized) {
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 05:57:05AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:17:40PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
Think what happens if CPU1 adds to list and CPU2 sees write to smk_known
*before* it sees write to -smk_next. We see a single-element list and
we'll be lucky if that
* 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
