Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Apr 25 2007 11:21, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Why did we want to use fsuid, exactly?
>> >
>> >- Because ruid is completely the wrong thing we want mounts owned
>> > by whomever's permissions we are using to perform the mount.
>>
>> Think
Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > So then as far as you're concerned, the patches which were in -mm will
> > > > remain unchanged?
> > >
> > > Basically yes. I've merged the update patch, which was not yet added
> > > to -mm, did so
> On Apr 25 2007 11:21, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>
> >> Why did we want to use fsuid, exactly?
> >
> >- Because ruid is completely the wrong thing we want mounts owned
> > by whomever's permissions we are using to perform the mount.
>
> Think nfs. I access some nfs file as an unprivileged user
> Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > So then as far as you're concerned, the patches which were in -mm will
> > > remain unchanged?
> >
> > Basically yes. I've merged the update patch, which was not yet added
> > to -mm, did some cosmetic code changes, and updated the patch headers.
Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > So then as far as you're concerned, the patches which were in -mm will
> > remain unchanged?
>
> Basically yes. I've merged the update patch, which was not yet added
> to -mm, did some cosmetic code changes, and updated the patch headers.
>
> There'
On Apr 25 2007 11:21, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Why did we want to use fsuid, exactly?
>
>- Because ruid is completely the wrong thing we want mounts owned
> by whomever's permissions we are using to perform the mount.
Think nfs. I access some nfs file as an unprivileged user. knfsd, by
nat
> So then as far as you're concerned, the patches which were in -mm will
> remain unchanged?
Basically yes. I've merged the update patch, which was not yet added
to -mm, did some cosmetic code changes, and updated the patch headers.
There's one open point, that I think we haven't really explored,
Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > Right, I figure if the normal action is to always do
> > > > mnt->user = current->fsuid, then for the special case we
> > > > pass a uid in someplace. Of course... do we not have a
> > > > place to
> Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > Right, I figure if the normal action is to always do
> > > mnt->user = current->fsuid, then for the special case we
> > > pass a uid in someplace. Of course... do we not have a
> > > place to do that? Would it be a no-no to use 'data' for
> > >
Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Right, I figure if the normal action is to always do
> > mnt->user = current->fsuid, then for the special case we
> > pass a uid in someplace. Of course... do we not have a
> > place to do that? Would it be a no-no to use 'data' for
> > a non-fs-sp
This patch fixes the bad_page() warning seen while freeing a container page.
By default all container pages are added to the active list on the
container. This patch lazily moves pages to the right list, so that a page
on the active list of the zone LRU and the inactive list of the container
does
11 matches
Mail list logo
