From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:09:07 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: Inconsistent capabilites associated with MPOL_MOVE_ALL In-Reply-To: <7277.1142380869@www015.gmx.net> Message-ID: References: <7277.1142380869@www015.gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Michael Kerrisk Cc: ak@suse.de, linux-mm@kvack.org, michael.kerrisk@gmx.net List-ID: On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > err = do_migrate_pages(mm, &old, &new, > capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ? MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL : MPOL_MF_MOVE); > > while in the implemantation of mbind() we have: > > if ((flags & MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL( && !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) > return -EPERM; > > Is it really intended to associate two *different* capabilities > with the operation of MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL in this fashion? At > first glance, it seems rather inconsistent to do so. You are likely right. Which one is the more correct capability to use? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org