On Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:03:25 PM -0600 Mike Gerdts
wrote:
> However, sync(1m) could
> do the same check that sync(2) does and return the appropriate error.
Ugh! No, thank you. I already see enough trouble with programs that think
they "know" what the privilege model is and refuse
>> Assuming we do steps 1 and 2 above, do we get into any problems with
>> POSIX compliance if the default basic privilege set does not include
>> PRIV_SYS_SYNC?
There is no such thing as a "default basic set".
There's a "basic set" and there's the "default set" users get when
they login; they
Mike Gerdts wrote:
> On 10/30/06, Darren J Moffat wrote:
>> James Carlson wrote:
>> Why, other than the returning an error we already have 5 such privileges
>> in the basic set. Now in each of those cases (proc_info, proc_session,
>> proc_fork, proc_exec, file_link_any) there is a way to return a
On Fri 03 Nov 2006 at 10:34AM, Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
>
> >> Assuming we do steps 1 and 2 above, do we get into any problems with
> >> POSIX compliance if the default basic privilege set does not include
> >> PRIV_SYS_SYNC?
>
> There is no such thing as a "default basic set".
>
> There's a
On 10/30/06, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> James Carlson wrote:
> Why, other than the returning an error we already have 5 such privileges
> in the basic set. Now in each of those cases (proc_info, proc_session,
> proc_fork, proc_exec, file_link_any) there is a way to return an error
> for sync(2) but
>Why, other than the returning an error we already have 5 such privileges
>in the basic set. Now in each of those cases (proc_info, proc_session,
>proc_fork, proc_exec, file_link_any) there is a way to return an error
>for sync(2) but there is for 'lockfs -f'.
And it's exactly what the basic
James Carlson wrote:
> Darren J Moffat writes:
>> Dan Price wrote:
>>> I know that at some point the performance guys wanted to make sync's by
>>> non-root users do nothing, but IIRC it was deemed too risky or something.
>>> Maybe we should go do that for Nevada. Anyone in request-sponsor land
>>>
Dan Price wrote:
> I know that at some point the performance guys wanted to make sync's by
> non-root users do nothing, but IIRC it was deemed too risky or something.
> Maybe we should go do that for Nevada. Anyone in request-sponsor land
> have some background info they could point us at?
For wa
Darren J Moffat writes:
> Dan Price wrote:
> > I know that at some point the performance guys wanted to make sync's by
> > non-root users do nothing, but IIRC it was deemed too risky or something.
> > Maybe we should go do that for Nevada. Anyone in request-sponsor land
> > have some background in
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 04:14:33PM +0100, Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
> >Why, other than the returning an error we already have 5 such privileges
> >in the basic set. Now in each of those cases (proc_info, proc_session,
> >proc_fork, proc_exec, file_link_any) there is a way to return an error
10 matches
Mail list logo
