[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1330BA1-69FA-444E-A070-6A781638D333@palsenberg.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 12:23:32 +0200
From: Igmar Palsenberg <igmar@...senberg.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
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 adding extra ones not in the withdrawn posix draft), eg see
> http://people.redhat.com/sgrubb/libcap-ng/
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.
Igmar
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.
