Quoting Garrett Cooper ([email protected]): > On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <[email protected]> wrote: > > Quoting Garrett Cooper ([email protected]): > > So since we're all member of the doc team, send a patch for sysctl(2) > > manpage ERRORS section :) > > > > (mtk cc:d as this is probably news to him) > > I already have a bug outstanding for it: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15446
That's not what I said :) > >> > An LSM could choose to return -EPERM > >> > after all, or perhaps even something different. The thing that > >> > should scare us is if the call succeeds. If we give any false > >> > positives, then true positives will seem less scary. > >> > >> This will fail on older kernels as sysctl(2) always returned EPERM due > > > > Sorry - what will fail? > > Read through the link, and you will understand why your new proposed > patch with fail with a false negative. I'm not sure that thread means what you think it does. But look, just trying to help. And no time for it really. I'll drop this. -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
