[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:0.020 / U:30.984 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site