Hey Alex,
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 3:38 AM Alex Colomar <alx.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Zach,
>
> On 10/17/22 19:55, Zach OKeefe wrote:
> > From: Zach O'Keefe <zokeefe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Since commit 96cfe2c0fd23 ("mm/madvise: replace ptrace attach
> > requirement for process_madvise"), process_madvise(2) has only
> > required CAP_SYS_NICE capability. Update the man page to reflect this.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zach O'Keefe <zokeefe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > man2/process_madvise.2 | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/man2/process_madvise.2 b/man2/process_madvise.2
> > index 6208206e4..7bee1a098 100644
> > --- a/man2/process_madvise.2
> > +++ b/man2/process_madvise.2
> > @@ -113,7 +113,8 @@ check (see
> > in addition,
> > because of the performance implications of applying the advice,
> > the caller must have the
> > -.B CAP_SYS_ADMIN
> > +.\" commit 96cfe2c0fd23ea7c2368d14f769d287e7ae1082e
> > +.B CAP_SYS_NICE
>
> Would it make sense to keep some parentheses specifying that in old
> kernels CAP_SYS_ADMIN was requiring instead?
Thanks for the suggestion. I've chatted with Suren on this
(process_madvise(2) author and contributor of initial
process_madvise(2) man-page) and the initial CAP_SYS_ADMIN appears to
have been a mistake; it was CAP_SYS_NICE from the beginning. I'll
reword the commit description and resend it as part of v2.
Thanks,
Zach
> Cheers,
> Alex
>
> > capability.
> > .SH RETURN VALUE
> > On success,
>
> --
> <http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
>
