Hmm, so, where do we need to fix this :-( --Subrata
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 13:39 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > 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
