Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:05:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:05:18 -0500 Received: from tourian.nerim.net ([62.4.16.79]:46350 "HELO tourian.nerim.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:05:00 -0500 Message-ID: <3C339219.4040808@free.fr> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 00:04:57 +0100 From: Lionel Bouton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.7+) Gecko/20020101 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linux Kernel List Cc: Alan Cox , Dave Jones Subject: Re: ISA slot detection on PCI systems? In-Reply-To: <20020102170833.A17655@thyrsus.com> <20020102172448.A18153@thyrsus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Alan Cox : > >>So you want the lowest possible priviledge level. Because if so thats >>setuid app not kernel space. Arguing about the same code in either kernel >>space verus setuid app space is garbage. >> > > But you're thinking like a developer, not a user. The right question > is which approach requires the lowest level of *user* privilege to get > the job done. Comparing world-readable /proc files versus a setuid app, > the answer is obvious. Reading proc files requires running kernel space code, do we have kernel space code running with *user* priviledge now? > This sort of thing is exactly what /proc is *for*. > Hum, "/proc" is only good for _flamewars_ on lklm ;-) LB. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/