Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:56:58 +0400 | From | Kirill Korotaev <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/6] BC: user interface (syscalls) |
| |
Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:04:16PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > >>Ar Mer, 2006-08-23 am 21:35 -0700, ysgrifennodd Andrew Morton: >> >>>>Its a uid_t because of setluid() and twenty odd years of existing unix >>>>practice. >>>> >>> >>>I don't understand. This number is an identifier for an accounting >>>container, which was somehow dreamed up by userspace. >> >>Which happens to be a uid_t. It could easily be anyother_t of itself and >>you can create a container_id_t or whatever. It is just a number. >> >>The ancient Unix implementations of this kind of resource management and >>security are built around setluid() which sets a uid value that cannot >>be changed again and is normally used for security purposes. That >>happened to be a uid_t and in simple setups at login uid = luid = euid >>would be the norm. >> >>Thus the Linux one happens to be a uid_t. It could be something else but >>for the "container per user" model whatever a container is must be able >>to hold all possible uid_t values. So we can certainly do something like >> >>typedef uid_t container_id_t; > > > What about cid_t? Google mentions cid_t was used in HP-UX specific IPC (only if > _INCLUDE_HPUX_SOURCE is defined). bcid_t?
Thanks, Kirill - 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/
| |