From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jun 25 7:47:55 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0BDC37B5DC; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:47:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12211; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:47:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: "clemensF" Cc: Marius Bendiksen , freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sys/ufs/ufs/ufs_quota.c In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 25 Jun 2000 00:18:40 +0200." <20000625001840.A1017@spotteswoode.de> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:47:39 +0200 Message-ID: <12209.961944459@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <20000625001840.A1017@spotteswoode.de>, "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 >> any objections to changing this? > >this should be more portable and future-save, right? Isn't there an issue with NFS server side ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message