Ah now I see what sean is aguing about.. He has a point.. maybe using jailsuser() or something might be a better idea? (On the other hand at 3.x existing KLD modules are not YET a problem except for OSS)
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Sean Eric Fagan wrote: > In article <199901271944.laa15317.kithrup.freebsd.curr...@kithrup.com> you > write: > >>all over the kernel: > >> > >> suser(NOJAIL, bla, bla); > >>or > >> suser(0, bla, bla); > >Oh, goody, more gratuitious incomaptibilities with everyone else. > > And to followup to my own message, since nobody else has: > > This is stupid. While I don't object to the concept (and even know people who > have requested it), that particular implementation sucks. It breaks an > existing API *and* ABI. > > I would suggest using a different routine name than suser(); suser() can be > made into a macro or stub routine that calls the new routine with a first > argument of 0 (or, of course, both a macro *and* a stub routine). > > Any time there's a change, "all over the kernel," THIS SHOULD RAISE WARNING > FLAGS, PEOPLE! > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
