Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:23:18 -0800 (PST)
From:      Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>
To:        Sean Eric Fagan <sef@kithrup.com>
Cc:        current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: "JAIL" code headed for -current.
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.95.990127152030.10452Q-100000@current1.whistle.com>
In-Reply-To: <199901272302.PAA02846@kithrup.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ah now I see what sean is aguing about..
He has a point.. 

maybe using jailsuser() or something might be a better idea?
(On the other hand at 3.x existing KLD modules are not YET a problem
except for OSS)

On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Sean Eric Fagan wrote:

> In article <199901271944.LAA15317.kithrup.freebsd.current@kithrup.com> you write:
> >>all over the kernel:
> >>
> >>	suser(NOJAIL, bla, bla);
> >>or
> >>	suser(0, bla, bla);
> >Oh, goody, more gratuitious incomaptibilities with everyone else.
> 
> And to followup to my own message, since nobody else has:
> 
> This is stupid.  While I don't object to the concept (and even know people who
> have requested it), that particular implementation sucks.  It breaks an
> existing API *and* ABI.
> 
> I would suggest using a different routine name than suser(); suser() can be
> made into a macro or stub routine that calls the new routine with a first
> argument of 0 (or, of course, both a macro *and* a stub routine).
> 
> Any time there's a change, "all over the kernel," THIS SHOULD RAISE WARNING
> FLAGS, PEOPLE!
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
> 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.990127152030.10452Q-100000>