From owner-freebsd-fs Sat Jun 24 14: 5: 8 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mail-relay.eunet.no (mail-relay.eunet.no [193.71.71.242]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 064BD37BC64; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:05:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mbendiks@eunet.no) Received: from login-1.eunet.no (login-1.eunet.no [193.75.110.2]) by mail-relay.eunet.no (8.9.3/8.9.3/GN) with ESMTP id XAA21925; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 23:05:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from mbendiks@eunet.no) Received: from localhost (mbendiks@localhost) by login-1.eunet.no (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA94204; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 23:05:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from mbendiks@eunet.no) X-Authentication-Warning: login-1.eunet.no: mbendiks owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 23:05:02 +0200 (CEST) From: Marius Bendiksen To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_quota.c Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Throughout ufs_quota, it appears as though a (struct ucred *) is passed to the various quota routines, rather than a (struct proc *). As I can see from the code, chkdq(), for example, should rather be using an suser() check upon a process structure, than testing cred->cr_uid==0. Are there any objections to changing this? --- Marius Bendiksen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message