[Devel] Re: [PATCH 5/9] cr: capabilities: define checkpoint and restore fns

[Andrew G. Morgan]

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge at hallyn.com> wrote:
>
> Quoting Andrew G. Morgan (morgan at kernel.org):
> > Serge,
> >
> > I'm not sure I'm too happy with hard coding the 64-bitness of
> > capability sets. It may well be a very long time before we increase
> > their size, but couldn't you prepare for that with some reference to
> > the prevailing magic numbers for the current ABI representation?
>
> Hmm, ok.  I figured since the c/r code was in capability.h it would
> be obvious that going past 64-bit would mean a new checkpoint image
> format.  I can see where that's silly...
>
> I'll put in a commented BUILD_BUG_ON like Alexey suggests - does that
> suffice?

I guess I'm not really well up on what the plans are for checkpoint
images. Is there some sort of version control/signature/checksum to
protect a kernel from loading an image that has been hacked to modify
the privilege it was running with when the checkpoint was created?

> > Also, the use of 'error' as both a variable and a goto destination
> > looks a little confusing.
>
> Ok will change.
>
> Did you see any problems with the way I authorize a task's resetting
> of capabilities at sys_restart()?

[See above.] Is there a mailing list or something I can lurk on to get
up to speed on what is being intended?

Thanks

Andrew

>
> thanks,
> -serge
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers