From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 05:18:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 05:17:56 -0400 Received: from hera.cwi.nl ([192.16.191.8]:30091 "EHLO hera.cwi.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 05:17:38 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 11:17:24 +0200 (MET DST) From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Message-Id: To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vii@users.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] setuid(2) buggy or bad docs Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > setuid(2) differs from the OpenBSD setuid(2) > Either I am non compos or the thing is very wrong. > The docs (man-pages-1.35) say ... Yes, setuid() has a behaviour that varies a bit from system to system. Moreover, it has varied in the history of Linux. The manpage may have been correct when it was written, but it is not today, and I just fixed it. ERRORS EPERM The user is not the super-user, and uid does not match the real or saved user ID of the calling pro­ cess. Our norm is the coming POSIX standard, roughly the Austin 7 draft, which again is based on the SUSv2. According to this, the current kernel code is correct here. Andries