Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 03:01:11 -0500 From: Chris Costello <chris@calldei.com> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: phk@critter.freebsd.dk, brent@rcfile.org, current@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Junior Kernel Hacker task: improve vnode->v_tag Message-ID: <20010908030110.E548@holly.calldei.com> In-Reply-To: <200109080729.KAA87536@www.abc.com.ua>; from sobomax@FreeBSD.org on Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 10:29:40AM %2B0300 References: <20010908003843.D548@holly.calldei.com> <200109080729.KAA87536@www.abc.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday, September 08, 2001, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> No, it should be pre-defined, because otherwise we will be
> unable to use strcmp() in a few places when v_tag is abused.
So in these cases (which ideally would be eliminated rather
than considered for support), why can't you do:
if (strcmp(vp->v_tag, "procfs") == 0) {
rather than
if (strcmp(vp->v_tag, VT_PROCFS) == 0) {
in the case of procfs? As for a solution to the problem, I'm
not entirely sure, but maybe this is a case for either a new
vnode flag, `VUNSAFE', for files which should be closed across
exec() calls (this is all setugidsafety() and its hackish
is_unsafe() companion are used for as far as I can tell).
--
+-------------------+------------------------------------+
| Chris Costello | Let the machine do the dirty work. |
| chris@calldei.com | - Elements of Programming Style |
+-------------------+------------------------------------+
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?20010908030110.E548>