Re: Capabilities done right [diff against 2.3.1]

Bernd Eckenfels (ecki@lina.inka.de)
Mon, 31 May 1999 02:32:15 +0200


In article <00a901bea6c8$0fe21f60$0c01a8c0@yogibear.penguinpowered.com> you wrote:
> Why not both? Why not return the syscall with failure (and appropriate
> error code) AND send a signal.

I dont see a good reason for sending an signal to an application in response
to an syscall (expecially of the error code is well defined). Which
application would want to use a signal? It is so much work to guess which
syscall failed, so there is no reason for it. And there is no reason to
kill an application if it receives -EPERM. The application most likely want
to write the error message.

Greetings
Bernd

-
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/