Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 21:53:02 -0500 From: Nathan Ahlstrom <nrahlstr@winternet.com> To: Bill Fumerola <billf@jade.chc-chimes.com>, Ryan <ryan@ryan.org> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Are certain parts of kernel not using suser() when they should? Message-ID: <19990824215302.A18654@winternet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908241950010.14447-100000@jade.chc-chimes.com>; from Bill Fumerola on Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 07:51:36PM -0400 References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990824172943.3756A-100000@ryan.org> <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908241950010.14447-100000@jade.chc-chimes.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bill Fumerola <billf@jade.chc-chimes.com> wrote: > 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? There are some prelimiary patches for this on my web page. http://www.freebsd.org/~nrahlstr/suser.patch I had been working with Eivind on it, but I have not had time as of late. The patch that is there should be close to commit ready modulo a decsion to use suser vs. suser_xxx. If anyone is interested in committing this patch, I can work with them/clean it up if necessary. Thanks! Nathan -- Nathan Ahlstrom FreeBSD: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ nrahlstr@winternet.com PGP Key ID: 0x67BC9D19 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990824215302.A18654>