Re: CAP_SYSLOG, 2.6.38 and user space

[Gergely Nagy]

On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 16:51 +0000, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > The idea would be to only use both when you detect a possibly older
> > > kernel. 
> > 
> > I was considering that, but... how do I reliably detect an older kernel?
> > So far, I didn't find a reliable way with which I can detect a kernel
> > version at run-time (apart from parsing utsname)
> 
> ...  Why not parse utsname?

It looks like an ugly hack to me. Apart from that, I can't list anything
against it.

On the other hand, the sysctl is a much better idea, I'd say, and having
that means one doesn't have to parse utsname either.

> > > From 2d7408541dd3a6e19a4265b028233789be6a40f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Serge Hallyn <serge@peq.(none)>
> > > Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:26:15 -0600
> > > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] cap_syslog: don't refuse cap_sys_admin for now
> > > 
> > > At 2.6.39 or 2.6.40, let's add a sysctl which defaults to 0.  When
> > > 0, refuse if cap_sys_admin, if 1, then allow.  This will allow
> > > users to acknowledge (permanently, if they must, using /etc/sysctl.conf)
> > > that they've seen the syslog message about cap_sys_admin being
> > > deprecated for syslog.
> > 
> > Could we have it the other way around, at least for a while? Otherwise,
> 
> Sure.
> 
> So long as there is a definite path toward eventually having syslog
> with CAP_SYS_ADMIN be denied.

\o/

-- 
|8]


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/