Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 12:23:32 +0200
From: Igmar Palsenberg <>
Subject: Re: Implementation of sys/capabilities.h

>> I'm in the works of implementing capability support within musl. This we need to implement if you ask me :
>> cap_init()
>> cap_free()
>> cap_dup()
>> cap_get_flag()
>> cap_set_flag()
>> cap_clear()
>> cap_get_proc()
>> cap_set_proc()
> Why in Musl out of interest? They are not in other libc's, and people
> expect to link to libcap for them surely. And some people argue that
> the interfaces are not very well designed (indeed libcap seems to be
> adding extra ones not in the withdrawn posix draft), eg see

It's open for debate. The syscalls need to be there (including the structs the kernel uses), and I've got those in a patch.

I agree the interface is shit : Way to complicated, while only need some simple functions, with a bitmap to represent them. Why implement it ?
It's the only thing we got, and programs assume it's POSIX, so it should be present. Yes, it's broken, but capabilities are a needed feature if you ask me.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.