From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
Cc: thuth@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, vgoyal@redhat.com
Subject: Re: libcap vs libcap-ng mess
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 11:46:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <98520a07-cf5d-a2a9-cfa4-944839b94c7c@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191129093409.GB2260471@redhat.com>
On 29/11/19 10:34, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> y) Should we flip over to only using one or the other - what
>> are the advantages?
> In libvirt we use libcap-ng. We picked this originally as its API
> design allows you do write simpler code than libcap in some cases
> You can see some docs & examples here:
>
> https://people.redhat.com/sgrubb/libcap-ng/
>
> So I vote for changing the 9p code to use libcap-ng.
It's not entirely trivial because fsdev-proxy-helper wants to keep the
effective set and clear the permitted set; in libcap-ng you can only
apply both sets at once, and you cannot choose only one of them in
capng_clear/capng_get_caps_process. But it's doable, I'll take a look.
In the meanwhile, if someone else wants to look at the CI I would
appreciate that.
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-29 10:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-28 19:04 libcap vs libcap-ng mess Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2019-11-29 9:34 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-11-29 10:46 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2019-11-29 10:51 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2019-11-29 18:01 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2019-11-29 18:12 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-11-29 18:20 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2019-11-29 18:27 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-11-29 18:54 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2019-11-29 23:19 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-12-02 10:07 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2019-12-02 10:33 ` Paolo Bonzini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=98520a07-cf5d-a2a9-cfa4-944839b94c7c@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=dgilbert@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=thuth@redhat.com \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).