lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: more thoughts on a new jail() system call
From
Date
On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 23:06, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> >> sys_vhangup) NOT SURE - Should be fine, right?
> >
> > Seems ok to me.
>
> Have fun with devpts.

can you expand on why this might be a problem, as far I can tell the
syscall is in fs/open.c

it seems very simple to me

asmlinkage long sys_vhangup(void)
{
if (capable(CAP_SYS_TTY_CONFIG)) {
tty_vhangup(current->tty);
return 0;
}
return -EPERM;
}
basically, we call tty_vhangup on the process's tty.

if tty_vhangup was the syscall, I could see this being a problem, but as
sys_vhangup can only operate on the what the task_struct has, how is it
a problem?

thanks,

shaya potter

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site