Re: [PATCH resend] define convenient securebits masks for prctlusers

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Serge,

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:02:36 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [ Are there any objections to exporting securebits.h?  If not,
> can this patch be pushed to linux-next? ]

I am not sure which tree this belongs in?  Maybe security-testing (James
cc'd)?

> diff --git a/include/linux/securebits.h b/include/linux/securebits.h
> index d2c5ed8..9ad109e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/securebits.h
> +++ b/include/linux/securebits.h
> @@ -1,6 +1,13 @@
>  #ifndef _LINUX_SECUREBITS_H
>  #define _LINUX_SECUREBITS_H 1
>  
> +/* Each securesetting is implemented using two bits. One bit specifies
> +   whether the setting is on or off. The other bit specify whether the
> +   setting is locked or not. A setting which is locked cannot be
> +   changed from user-level. */
> +#define issecure_mask(X)	(1 << (X))
> +#define issecure(X)		(issecure_mask(X) & current_cred_xxx(securebits))

You want this second define protected by ifdef __KERNEL__ ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature