Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 24 Mar 1997 08:23:55 -0700
From:      Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
To:        =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.ru>
Cc:        peter@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-current <current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: issetuid() 
Message-ID:  <E0w9BbH-00057u-00@rover.village.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Mar 1997 17:07:48 %2B0300." <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970324170010.832A-100000@nagual.ru> 
References:  <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970324170010.832A-100000@nagual.ru>  

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970324170010.832A-100000@nagual.ru> =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= writes:
: Peter, as I remember you have plans to implement issetuid(). Right now too
: many changes sneaked in the source tree which require it. As I think,
: implementation can be done easily, just check P_SUGID bit. Also setuid() 
: etc syscalls must be cleaned slightly to not set this bit when not really
: neccessary (i.e. when the same uid/gid is set). Do you have something for
: review at this moment? 

There were already a bunch of other places that used the same code I
did, or a variation on them.  I at least tagged my with XXX should use
issetugid(), others didn't.

Warner



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0w9BbH-00057u-00>