Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-07,: Re: why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?

# Re: why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?

Tigran Aivazian (tigran@ocston.org)
Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:17:20 -0800 (PST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Linus Torvalds: "Re: [patch-2.3.46-p2] P6 microcode update support"
- Previous message: Tamas D'Varde: "Re: HFS "lockups"."
- In reply to: Richard Gooch: "Re: why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?"
- Next in thread: Matthew Kirkwood: "Re: why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?"

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
>
> So I'd rather that MTRR was left alone until the house of capabilities
> is cleaned up.
>
Sorry Richard, but I was fiddling with mtrr.c for P6 ucode stuff so I
couldn't stand the temptation to cleanup the suser->capable bits. However,
if you feel strongly about it, surely Linus can ignore that part of my
patch :)

Regards,
Tigran.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Linus Torvalds: "Re: [patch-2.3.46-p2] P6 microcode update support"
- Previous message: Tamas D'Varde: "Re: HFS "lockups"."
- In reply to: Richard Gooch: "Re: why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?"
- Next in thread: Matthew Kirkwood: "Re: why does mtrr use suser() and not capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)?"