[PATCH V3 02/10] capabilities: intuitive names for cap gain status

[Richard Guy Briggs]

On 2017-08-24 12:06, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge at hallyn.com> wrote:
> > Quoting Richard Guy Briggs (rgb at redhat.com):
> >> On 2017-08-24 11:03, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >> > Quoting Richard Guy Briggs (rgb at redhat.com):
> >> > > Introduce macros cap_gained, cap_grew, cap_full to make the use of the
> >> > > negation of is_subset() easier to read and analyse.
> >> > >
> >> > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb at redhat.com>
> >> > > ---
> >> > >  security/commoncap.c |   16 ++++++++++------
> >> > >  1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >> > >
> >> > > diff --git a/security/commoncap.c b/security/commoncap.c
> >> > > index b7fbf77..6f05ec0 100644
> >> > > --- a/security/commoncap.c
> >> > > +++ b/security/commoncap.c
> >> > > @@ -513,6 +513,12 @@ void handle_privileged_root(struct linux_binprm *bprm, bool has_cap, bool *effec
> >> > >           *effective = true;
> >> > >  }
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > It's subjective and so might be just me, but I think I'd find it easier
> >> > to read if it was cap_gained(source, target, field) and cap_grew(cred, source, target)
> >>
> >> In more than one place, I wanted to put the parameter that I was trying
> >> to read aloud closest to the function name to make reading it flow
> >> better, leaving the parameters less critical to comprehension towards
> >> the end.
> >
> > And I see that in the final patch it looks nicer the way you have it.
> >
> >> > This looks correct though, so either way
> >> >
> >> > Reviewed-by: Serge Hallyn <serge at hallyn.com>
> >>
> >> Thanks.  Did you want to put this through, or send it through Paul's
> >> audit tree?
> >
> > If Paul's around I'm happy to have it go through his tree.
> 
> Is this series based against -next with the changes that touch commoncap.c?

This series is against pcmoore's audit/next tree (I know I'm missing two
commits but they pose no conflict.).

Which -next tree are you talking about?  I might guess
linux-security/next or linux-next/master (I have at least a dozen "next"
in my git repo config.)

I did eventually find your patches in sfr's tree and in your for-next/kspp branch.

I'll have a look at the commoncap.c changes including the elimination of cap_effective.

> Also, did you validate this with the existing LTP tests and selftests?
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/commit/?h=for-next/secureexec&id=ee67ae7ef6ff499137292ac8a9dfe86096796283

No.  I will look into doing that.  Thanks for the suggestion.

I see that bprm->cap_effective has vanished, so that will affect at least one hunk.

> Kees Cook

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb at redhat.com>
Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems
Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada
IRC: rgb, SunRaycer
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635
--
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