On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:21 AM, casper@sun.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:05 AM, casper@sun.com wrote:
Originally I did that, but there was concern v_path might not always
be correct (or available) (such as renames or with hard links IIRC),
and so might generate a confusing
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:05 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Originally I did that, but there was concern v_path might not always
be correct (or available) (such as renames or with hard links IIRC),
and so might generate a confusing message in those situations. I
wasn't aware of any mechanism
I'm looking for reviewers for '6613349 setuid not allowed message
could be more useful'. I've tested it on a b101 system without any
issues. It's pretty straightforward (and small) -- just modifying the
message to display the filesystem path (instead of the device number)
and making it zone
I'm looking for reviewers for '6613349 setuid not allowed message
could be more useful'. I've tested it on a b101 system without any
issues. It's pretty straightforward (and small) -- just modifying the
message to display the filesystem path (instead of the device number)
and making it zone
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking for reviewers for '6613349 setuid not allowed message
could be more useful'. I've tested it on a b101 system without any
issues. It's pretty straightforward (and small) -- just modifying the
message to display the
