On Sunday 23 July 2006 22:07, 李尚杰 wrote:
The code for ipcperm() call :
93 if (mode IPC_M) {
94 error = suser(td);
95 if (error)
96 return (error);
97 }
116 if
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Xin LI wrote:
On 7/24/06, 李尚杰 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The code for ipcperm() call :
78 ipcperm(td, perm, mode)
79 struct thread *td;
80 struct ipc_perm *perm;
81 int mode;
82 {
83 struct ucred *cred = td-td_ucred;
84 int
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Xin LI wrote:
why not directly return the error in line 94?
I think it makes sense to remove the assignment and the 'error' variable.
Let's see Robert's opinion.
I'm sorry, my previous answer was based on a mis-reading of the question --
you're not suggesting
Quoting Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from Mon, 24 Jul 2006
13:04:45 +0100 (BST)):
also. I would be interested in seeing reasonable restructurings of
this code, perhaps as a set of blocks that looks at each requested
operation or set of related operations and authorizes them sequentially.
The code for ipcperm() call :
78 ipcperm(td, perm, mode)
79 struct thread *td;
80 struct ipc_perm *perm;
81 int mode;
82 {
83 struct ucred *cred = td-td_ucred;
84 int error;
85
86 if (cred-cr_uid != perm-cuid cred-cr_uid != perm-uid) {
87
On 7/24/06, 李尚杰 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The code for ipcperm() call :
78 ipcperm(td, perm, mode)
79 struct thread *td;
80 struct ipc_perm *perm;
81 int mode;
82 {
83 struct ucred *cred = td-td_ucred;
84 int error;
85
86 if (cred-cr_uid !=
6 matches
Mail list logo
