Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo writes:
> Hi,
>
> Please consider applying.
>
> - Arnaldo
>
> --- linux-2.4.0-test8-pre1/arch/i386/kernel/mtrr.c Thu Jul 13 01:58:41 2000
> +++ linux-2.4.0-test8-pre1.acme/arch/i386/kernel/mtrr.c Wed Aug 30 20:52:48
>2000
> @@ -1427,7 +1427,7 @@
> char *ptr;
> char line[LINE_SIZE];
>
> - if ( !suser () ) return -EPERM;
> + if ( !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ) return -EPERM;
[...]
Tigran Aivazian writes:
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > - if ((current->tty != tty) && !suser())
> > + if ((current->tty != tty) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>
> how about fixing mtrr driver to use capabilities as well? Last time I
> tried it, Richard objected (well, I put a lot of unnecessary stuff at the
> time so he objected to the entire patch, suser was a small part
> thereof) but perhaps now we can sneak it in and he won't notice :)
Grumble. Someone tell me why we can't just remove the suser() calls
entirely and instead test if the file has write access? That's what
the permissions on the file are for. Read access lets people take a
look, but write access is required to change anything.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Current: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
