Re: Capabilities done right [diff against 2.3.1]

Simon Richter (geier@phobos.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de)
Mon, 24 May 1999 13:31:18 +0200 (CEST)


On Mon, 24 May 1999, David Luyer wrote:

> What I was saying is, if you kill things with a signal when capabilities
> fail, this signal should default to killing the process.

Agreed.

> Then non-capability-aware stuff would just die when someone tried tricks
> on it. Not the best behaviour, but possibly preferable. I don't know
> if the current behaviour is a signal or simply to fail syscalls with
> permission denied.

I believe, "Permission denied" is the better alternative, as it can be
understood by older/just-ported programs.

Simon

PGP public key available from ftp://phobos.fs.tum.de/pub/pgp/geier.asc
Fingerprint: 10 62 F6 F5 C0 5D 9E D8 47 05 1B 8A 22 E5 4E C1
GEEK code block available from ftp://phobos.fs.tum.de/pub/gcb/geier.asc
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!

-
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/