From owner-freebsd-fs Wed Sep 27 0:42:17 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from relay.butya.kz (butya-gw.butya.kz [212.154.129.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D167737B424; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by relay.butya.kz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8EBB228770; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 14:42:03 +0700 (ALMST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.butya.kz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77D9C285EE; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 14:42:03 +0700 (ALMST) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 14:42:03 +0700 (ALMST) From: Boris Popov To: Robert Watson Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org, trustedbsd-discuss@TrustedBSD.org Subject: Re: VOP_ACCESS() and new VADMIN/VATTRIB? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Robert Watson wrote: > I'd like to propose that an existing VADMIN flag be added determining > whether or not the passed credentials are permitted to administer the > file. Here is a brief itemization of locations in the code where i->uid > checks would be replaced with VOP_ACCESS(vp, ... VADMIN ...) calls, with > some possible omissions: Interesting, but will there a strict policy which declares priority of this flag and its relation with suser() ? -- Boris Popov http://www.butya.kz/~bp/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message