From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Aug 24 17:50:23 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from jade.chc-chimes.com (jade.chc-chimes.com [216.28.46.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B25914BCE for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 17:50:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from billf@jade.chc-chimes.com) Received: by jade.chc-chimes.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 84A771C25; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:51:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jade.chc-chimes.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 800633826; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:51:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:51:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Fumerola To: Ryan Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Are certain parts of kernel not using suser() when they should? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Ryan wrote: > Grepping through the kernel source tree, one finds these 12 files that use > "uid == 0" checks instead of the usual suser(). There may be more than one > instance per function/macro: [...] > Is there a reason for these checks not to use suser? No. Eivind Eklund was working this according the FreeBSD projects page (eivind@FreeBSD.org). I don't know the implication of this, would this impact phk's jail routines? -- - bill fumerola - billf@chc-chimes.com - BF1560 - computer horizons corp - - ph:(800) 252-2421 - bfumerol@computerhorizons.com - billf@FreeBSD.org - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message