On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 12:15:02PM +0100, Guillaume Chazarain wrote:
> Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The whole point is that we have to reject it at read() time, not open()
> > time.
>
> Yes, my patch was a complement to yours to propagate the -EPERM in easy
> cases. As you noted it ad
Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The whole point is that we have to reject it at read() time, not open()
> time.
Yes, my patch was a complement to yours to propagate the -EPERM in easy
cases. As you noted it added restrictions on reading /proc/*/maps, even
though I found them acceptable.
How
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 12:51:50AM +0100, Guillaume Chazarain wrote:
> Now that strangers are kept out of /proc//maps, let's welcome them
> with -EPERM instead of a blank file.
NAK
The whole point is that we have to reject it at read() time, not open()
time. Checks in open() are
a) usele
Now that strangers are kept out of /proc//maps, let's welcome them
with -EPERM instead of a blank file.
Signed-off-by: Guillaume Chazarain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/proc/base.c |8
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
index
4 matches
Mail list logo
