Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Apr 1999 16:19:36 -0700 (PDT) | From | Jonathan Walther <> | Subject | Re: caps in elf, next itteration (the hack get's bigger) |
| |
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, David L. Parsley (lkml account) wrote: > rather than the exception. Scripts will have to wait for FS support, and > setuid scripts will break with all the standard tools + nfs. I did forget
Eh? How do you figure?
> > Another thing: with capabilities set in the filesystem, you don't have to > > muck with the suid semantics. Don't mess with this! The meaning of > > suid is all settled, don't go yanking it out from under our feet! > The meaning of 'setuid 0' is outdated, this is a better way to use it.
No! I want backwards compatibility and easy portability and POSIX compliance in my code. Im not going to break POSIX just for Linux sake. Linux is not the only Unix platform I code on! With capabilities done in the FS, we have no NEED to change the meaning of suid, so we SHOULDNT.
Jonathan Walther *ifItAin'tBrokeDon'tFixIt* Digital Video Broadcasting Systems http://216.100.231.12 (requires netscape)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |