[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] new setprocuid syscall

[BERECZ Szabolcs]
> The conclusion: it's cannot be implemented without slowdown.

Or: it cannot be implemented 100% safely and correctly without slowdown.

If you know the use you wish to put this to, and are willing to risk a
permission check somewhere being confused momentarily by a non-atomic
update of a 32-bit number (or the non-atomic update between several
32-bit numbers, which I think is less serious because then you are not
granting more than the union of the two UIDs) go ahead and patch your

> So ignore my patch.

For official kernels, I agree. They need to be as safe and
deterministic as possible, especially security-wise, and a semaphore on
every permission check would be ridiculous.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:17    [W:0.043 / U:1.432 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site