On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:21 AM, wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:05 AM, 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 s
>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
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 m
>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 that could take exec_file or the vnode
>and generate a nic
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 th
>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 zon
