Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:57:08 -0400 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mtrr: s/suser/capable/ |
| |
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo writes: > Em Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 10:49:22PM -0400, Richard Gooch escreveu: > > 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. > > I'll take a look at it tomorrow, maybe some other places can benefit > from this.
Thanks. After all, what do we have file/device permissions for, if we don't use them. Why use/invent another mechanism (which just adds more code) when the file permissions have a natural mapping to what's allowed and what isn't.
Regards,
Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |