On 7/24/06, 李尚杰 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The code for ipcperm() call : 78 ipcperm(td, perm, mode) 79 struct thread *td; 80 struct ipc_perm *perm; 81 int mode; 82 { 83 struct ucred *cred = td->td_ucred; 84 int error; 85 86 if (cred->cr_uid != perm->cuid && cred->cr_uid != perm->uid) { 87 /* 88 * For a non-create/owner, we require privilege to 89 * modify the object protections. Note: some other 90 * implementations permit IPC_M to be delegated to 91 * unprivileged non-creator/owner uids/gids. 92 */ 93 if (mode & IPC_M) { 94 error = suser(td); 95 if (error) 96 return (error); 97 } 98 /* 99 * Try to match against creator/owner group; if not, fall 100 * back on other. 101 */ 102 mode >>= 3; 103 if (!groupmember(perm->gid, cred) && 104 !groupmember(perm->cgid, cred)) 105 mode >>= 3; 106 } else { 107 /* 108 * Always permit the creator/owner to update the object 109 * protections regardless of whether the object mode 110 * permits it. 111 */ 112 if (mode & IPC_M) 113 return (0); 114 } 115 116 if ((mode & perm->mode) != mode) { 117 if (suser(td) != 0) 118 return (EACCES); 119 } 120 return (0); 121 }why not directly return the error in line 94?
I think it makes sense to remove the assignment and the 'error' variable. Let's see Robert's opinion. Cheers, -- Xin LI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.delphij.net _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
