From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jun 24 16:42:55 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail-relay.eunet.no (mail-relay.eunet.no [193.71.71.242]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E11737B50F; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:42:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mbendiks@eunet.no) Received: from login-1.eunet.no (login-1.eunet.no [193.75.110.2]) by mail-relay.eunet.no (8.9.3/8.9.3/GN) with ESMTP id BAA33272; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 01:42:48 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from mbendiks@eunet.no) Received: from localhost (mbendiks@localhost) by login-1.eunet.no (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA94649; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 01:42:48 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from mbendiks@eunet.no) X-Authentication-Warning: login-1.eunet.no: mbendiks owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 01:42:48 +0200 (CEST) From: Marius Bendiksen To: clemensF Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_quota.c In-Reply-To: <20000625001840.A1017@spotteswoode.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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 checking for a particular user id. As such things as CAP_FOO become more common, the latter method is a quite unneccessary obstacle. Marius To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message