Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/secmodel/bsd44
To: None <elad@NetBSD.org>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
Date: 11/08/2006 08:29:48
> YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> >> also note that some constructs actually set EPERM as the retval for the
> >> function and break. do you still think we should convert those that use
> >> the above construct to the one you suggest?
> > yes. my point is not to assume failure of kauth_foo() is due to EPERM.
> kauth_authorize_action() can return either 0 or EPERM; the reason may be
> different, but the final decision is one of those. or do you mean
> something else?
well, what's the point to let callers know it?