Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:02:13 +1030 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: issetugid(2) Message-ID: <199711260432.PAA02455@word.smith.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Nov 1997 17:59:16 -0800." <Pine.BSF.3.95.971125175143.2423C-100000@current1.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > This has broken all sorts of things here. > I thought that the syscall interface for 2.2.x was being kept > unchanged. Er, so did I. > This call makes it impossible to run binaries (e.g. vi) > compiled under 2.2.5+ on a 2.2.2 machine. > Surely the library routine that calls this > should cope with it not being in the kernel, > in the same way that Peter did his new syscalls. Um. Peter brought issetugid() back from -current. I had assumed that he'd done the Right Thing with it. > was this considered teh 'correct thing to do?' No. > was there discussion? Not AFAIR. > Peter, how did you trap your new syscalls? (i can't even remember > which they were) > I'll see if I can work up a similar workaround if I can find a reference. Look in libc/gen/getcwd.c in -current (at least). mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711260432.PAA02455>