Re: procfs permissions on 2.6.x

[Christoph Hellwig]

> > Actually the patch you reference above looks extremly bogus and should just
> > be reverted instead.
> 
> Why is it "extremely bogus"?  I assume Olaf had a reason for wanting chmod
> on procfs files?

Because it turns the question what permissions a procfs file has into
a lottery game.  He only changes the incore inode owner and as soon as
the inode is reclaimed the old ones return.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/