From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Nov 25 20:36:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA15678 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 20:36:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from word.smith.net.au (vh1.gsoft.com.au [203.38.152.122]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA15672 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 20:36:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@word.smith.net.au) Received: from word (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by word.smith.net.au (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA02455; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:02:14 +1030 (CST) Message-Id: <199711260432.PAA02455@word.smith.net.au> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: Julian Elischer cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: issetugid(2) In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 25 Nov 1997 17:59:16 -0800." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:02:13 +1030 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > 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