why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?

From: Tigran Aivazian (tigran@sco.COM)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2000 - 06:45:19 EST

Next message: Matthew Kirkwood: "Re: why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?"
Previous message: Anton Blanchard: "Re: SMP spin_lock..."
Next in thread: Matthew Kirkwood: "Re: why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?"
Reply: Matthew Kirkwood: "Re: why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi guys,

Is there any reason why does mtrr (e.g. mtrr_ioctl()) use the old suser()
instead of the new capable() (e.g. CAP_SYS_ADMIN seems the closest) to
do permission check?

Thanks,
------
Tigran A. Aivazian | http://www.sco.com
Escalations Research Group | tel: +44-(0)1923-813796
Santa Cruz Operation Ltd | http://www.ocston.org/~tigran

-
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/

Next message: Matthew Kirkwood: "Re: why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?"
Previous message: Anton Blanchard: "Re: SMP spin_lock..."
Next in thread: Matthew Kirkwood: "Re: why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?"
Reply: Matthew Kirkwood: "Re: why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 21:00:29 EST