Samuel Thibault wrote:
Mmm, actually maybe it would make even more sense to use
if (id != (pid_t)-1)
What's a pid_t ?
Eeergl, sorry, that was meant to be read uid_t :)
Ah! makes sense now...
I was wondering if we should prevent the creation of users with uid -1?
Marc O.
Marc-Olivier Mercier, le Fri 07 Mar 2008 17:40:48 -0500, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >Marc-Olivier Mercier, le Thu 06 Mar 2008 22:27:14 -0500, a écrit :
> >
> >>@@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ verify_id (uid_t id, int is_group, int m
> >> /* VERIFY_FN should have been defaulted in idvec_verify if
Samuel Thibault wrote:
Marc-Olivier Mercier, le Thu 06 Mar 2008 22:27:14 -0500, a écrit :
@@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ verify_id (uid_t id, int is_group, int m
/* VERIFY_FN should have been defaulted in idvec_verify if necessary. */
assert (verify_fn);
- if (id >= 0)
+ if ((signed int)id !
Marc-Olivier Mercier, le Thu 06 Mar 2008 22:27:14 -0500, a écrit :
> @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ verify_id (uid_t id, int is_group, int m
>/* VERIFY_FN should have been defaulted in idvec_verify if necessary. */
>assert (verify_fn);
>
> - if (id >= 0)
> + if ((signed int)id != -1)
> do
>
Samuel Thibault wrote:
Marc-Olivier Mercier, le Sun 24 Feb 2008 10:57:24 -0500, a écrit :
There's many patches possible :
4): treat (signed long)(-1) as a special case, allowing value 0 to
(signed long)(-2) to be used normally.
I've checked in SUSv3: uid_t is allowed to be unsigned
Yo
Marc-Olivier Mercier, le Sun 24 Feb 2008 10:57:24 -0500, a écrit :
> There's many patches possible :
4): treat (signed long)(-1) as a special case, allowing value 0 to
(signed long)(-2) to be used normally.
I've checked in SUSv3: uid_t is allowed to be unsigned.
Samuel
