From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19596 invoked from network); 1 Sep 1999 10:50:30 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 1 Sep 1999 10:50:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 8381 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 1999 10:50:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 7600 Received: (qmail 8374 invoked from network); 1 Sep 1999 10:50:19 -0000 Subject: Re: PATCH: 3.1.6-pws-2: cap_free In-Reply-To: <9909010800.AA16059@ibmth.df.unipi.it> from Peter Stephenson at "Sep 1, 1999 10: 0: 7 am" To: pws@ibmth.df.unipi.it (Peter Stephenson) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 11:50:17 +0100 (BST) Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL48 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Zefram Peter Stephenson wrote: >I've finally compiled on a system with POSIX capability sets. This one >definitely needs cap_free to get the value returned from cap_get_proc, not >a pointer to it. If there are implementations which do this the other way, >we have problems. When I wrote that code, I was working from an alpha version of the Linux libcap (which I was co-writing), which was based on a not-entirely-clear summary of a draft of POSIX.6. I wouldn't be surprised if that's how it's supposed to be. -zefram