Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/secmodel/bsd44
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
From: Elad Efrat <elad@NetBSD.org>
Date: 11/08/2006 01:30:31
YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> 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?
oh I get your point. will change now.