From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751564Ab1BEHGF (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Feb 2011 02:06:05 -0500 Received: from mail.lang.hm ([64.81.33.126]:52623 "EHLO bifrost.lang.hm" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750876Ab1BEHGE (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Feb 2011 02:06:04 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 23:05:55 -0800 (PST) From: david@lang.hm X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: "Serge E. Hallyn" cc: Gergely Nagy , James Morris , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: CAP_SYSLOG, 2.6.38 and user space In-Reply-To: <20110204171502.GA24226@mail.hallyn.com> Message-ID: References: <1296733177.14846.26.camel@moria> <20110203153252.GA24153@mail.hallyn.com> <20110204160513.GB17396@mail.hallyn.com> <1296837186.24742.15.camel@moria> <20110204171502.GA24226@mail.hallyn.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Gergely Nagy (algernon@balabit.hu): >> On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 16:05 +0000, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >>> Quoting Serge E. Hallyn (serge@hallyn.com): >>>>> From 2d7408541dd3a6e19a4265b028233789be6a40f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>>> From: Serge Hallyn >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Serge Hallyn > - goto warn; /* switch to return -EPERM after 2.6.39 */ > + !capable(CAP_SYSLOG)) { > + /* remove after 2.6.39 */ > + if (capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) > + WARN_ONCE(1, "Attempt to access syslog with CAP_SYS_ADMIN " > + "but no CAP_SYSLOG (deprecated).\n"); > + else > + return -EPERM; > + } > } why does this need to be removed after 2.6.39? whenever you go to remove it you will break userspace, what's the benifit of breaking userspace? I can understand that it's better to have a syslog daemon with CAP_SYSLOG instead of CAP_SYS_ADMIN, but does "it would be better to have userspace changed" really translate into "it's so important to have userspace changed that we need to break any userspace that hasn't changed"? I really don't think so. David Lang