On Gwe, 2005-11-11 at 15:02 -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Alan Cox (alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > On Gwe, 2005-11-11 at 23:38 +0100, Claudio Scordino wrote:
> > > + if ((current->euid != tsk->euid) &&
> > > + (current->euid != tsk->uid)) {
> > > + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> >
> >
> > Would be -EPERM also wants a 'privilege' check. Not sure which would be
> > best here - CAP_SYS_ADMIN seems to be the 'default' used
>
> It's already available via /proc w/out protection. And ditto via posix
> cpu timers.
In which case the only comment I have is the one about accuracy - and
that is true for procfs too so will only come up if someone gets the
urge to use perfctr timers for precision resource management
--
Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel.
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/
FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
