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

From: Matthew Kirkwood (weejock@ferret.lmh.ox.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2000 - 07:05:49 EST

Next message: Chris Pinnock: "2.3.45 doesn't compile (net.c)"
Previous message: Tigran Aivazian: "why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?"
In reply to: Tigran Aivazian: "why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?"
Next in thread: Richard Gooch: "Re: why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?"
Reply: Richard Gooch: "Re: why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:

> 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?

I don't know about the reason, but I would prefer CAP_SYS_RAWIO,
if it's messing with hardware settings.

Matthew.

-
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: Chris Pinnock: "2.3.45 doesn't compile (net.c)"
Previous message: Tigran Aivazian: "why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?"
In reply to: Tigran Aivazian: "why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?"
Next in thread: Richard Gooch: "Re: why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?"
Reply: Richard Gooch: "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