Re: sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_quota.c

2000-06-25 Thread Marius Bendiksen
[cred->cr_uid==0] > >this should be more portable and future-save, right? > Isn't there an issue with NFS server side ? There might be. I have not looked at the NFS code. However, offhand, I do not see any reason why this should be the case, except for bugs in the code, given that any requrest wi

Re: sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_quota.c

2000-06-25 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "clemensF" writes: >> Marius Bendiksen: > >> the various quota routines, rather than a (struct proc *). As I can see >> >from the code, chkdq(), for example, should rather be using an suser() >> check upon a process structure, than testing cred->cr_uid==0. Are there

Re: sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_quota.c

2000-06-24 Thread Ben Smithurst
clemensF wrote: >> Marius Bendiksen: > >> Actually, our suser() implementation is pretty non-portable. > > i take what i get. when i can do "man [23] ", i approve of the > consequences. Too bad suser() is in section 9 then. :-) -- Ben Smithurst / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0x99392F7D PGP si

Re: sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_quota.c

2000-06-24 Thread clemensF
> Marius Bendiksen: > Actually, our suser() implementation is pretty non-portable. i take what i get. when i can do "man [23] ", i approve of the consequences. clemens To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_quota.c

2000-06-24 Thread Marius Bendiksen
> this should be more portable and future-save, right? Actually, our suser() implementation is pretty non-portable. However, using suser() rather than a credential check is better form. In the former case, you are checking for the presence of special privileges, while in the latter case, you are

Re: sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_quota.c

2000-06-24 Thread clemensF
> Marius Bendiksen: > the various quota routines, rather than a (struct proc *). As I can see > >from the code, chkdq(), for example, should rather be using an suser() > check upon a process structure, than testing cred->cr_uid==0. Are there > any objections to changing this? this should be more

sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_quota.c

2000-06-24 Thread Marius Bendiksen
Throughout ufs_quota, it appears as though a (struct ucred *) is passed to the various quota routines, rather than a (struct proc *). As I can see from the code, chkdq(), for example, should rather be using an suser() check upon a process structure, than testing cred->cr_uid==0. Are there any obje