Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/secmodel/bsd44
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <>
From: Elad Efrat <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 11/08/2006 01:27:52
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?


Elad Efrat