Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:16:36 +1100 (EDT) From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au> To: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: issetugid(2) Message-ID: <199711260417.UAA14049@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971125175143.2423C-100000@current1.whistle.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Nov 25, 97 05:59:16 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
where did this syscall come from ? Someone doing OpenBSD compatibility ? In some mail from Julian Elischer, sie said: > > This has broken all sorts of things here. > I thought that the syscall interface for 2.2.x was being kept > unchanged. > This call makes it impossible to run binaries (e.g. vi) > compiled under 2.2.5+ on a 2.2.2 machine. > Surely the library routine that calls this > should cope with it not being in the kernel, > in the same way that Peter did his new syscalls. > > was this considered teh 'correct thing to do?' > was there discussion? > > I must have dismissed it and now it's bitten me :( > > I have many machiens on people's desks here running everything > from 2.1.0 to 2.2.5, but teh chroot environments they use are all > 2.2.2. I was upgrading the chroot environment to 2.2.5(+) but > it can only be used on the newest machines, and I don't want to have to > upgrade all those machines..! > > Peter, how did you trap your new syscalls? (i can't even remember > which they were) > I'll see if I can work up a similar workaround if I can find a reference. > > > julian > (GRRR)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711260417.UAA14049>