On 8/3/05, Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 16:18 -0400, Jon Smirl wrote: > > On 8/3/05, Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > They aren't used in the mesa tree. > > > > > > So why did you change their requiring root? > > > > The version of Xegl I am making does not run as root. [...] > > I know. You missed my question: Why do you change the behaviour of code > that doesn't affect what you're trying to achieve?
The original code did not separate the concept of auth and root, they were implemented as the same bit. I had to separate the concepts. I kept all of the code implementing auth unchanged. There was a single check looking for root across all IOCTLs. I had to remove that check. Now we have have to identify the IOCTLs that really require root and add the check specifically to them. So far there are only two: addmap and indirect. I could have made three bits: auth_needed, root_only, master. But that was a lot of deltas to implement a root_only bit which is only needed for indirect. Instead it is easier to just add a capability root check in the ioctl. You can't uses a root only bit on addmap since the root requirement is a function of the parameters passed in. -- Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
