Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TAKE\s+\-\s+Fix\s+root\s+exec\s+access\s+checks\s+on\s+files\s+with\s+acls\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TAKE\s+\-\s+Fix\s+root\s+exec\s+access\s+checks\s+on\s+files\s+with\s+acls\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. TAKE - Fix root exec access checks on files with acls (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:01:12 -0500; 002-10-22 21:17 -- Created an attachment (id=41) --> (http://oss.sgi.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41&act; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00523.html (8,418 bytes)
2. RE: TAKE - Fix root exec access checks on files with acls (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:42:51 +0300; rd VFS access checks look for at least one +x bit set before allowing root (CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE) exec access to the file. This does the analogous; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00525.html (8,981 bytes)
3. Re: TAKE - Fix root exec access checks on files with acls (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:04:48 +0100; nking of the case where the waiting threads holds a sleeping lock. I've digged a bit deeper into the code and found the following issues: add; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00528.html (8,381 bytes)
4. RE: TAKE - Fix root exec access checks on files with acls (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 23 Oct 2002 10:05:53 -0500; : add; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00529.html (9,561 bytes)
5. e_buf.c (score: 1): Author: Òë¹«Ë¾" <faxin@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:01:12 -0500; atter if you call wake_up or not. Can you explain how exactly that leads to prob; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01302.html (8,418 bytes)
6. ¬±ÊÒë¡¢¿ÚÒë¡¢ÍøÕ¾±¾µØ»¯--www.soven.com (score: 1): Author: llwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:42:51 +0300; ngs have caught my eye. First, we were getting BUG in unlock_page(), see xfs-bugz; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01304.html (8,981 bytes)
7. _bh()::page_buf.c (score: 1): Author: rry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:04:48 +0100; for at least one +x bit set before allowing root (CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE) exec access to the file. This does the analogous; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01307.html (8,381 bytes)
8. n files with acls (score: 1): Author: llwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 23 Oct 2002 10:05:53 -0500; xactly like wake_up() - just that it will never reschedule to woken up thread. Both wake_up() and wake_up_sync() never sleep and wake up just the firt process. --end quoted text--; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01308.html (9,561 bytes)
9. TAKE - Fix root exec access checks on files with acls (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:01:12 -0500; Fix root exec access checks on files with acls The standard VFS access checks look for at least one +x bit set before allowing root (CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE) exec access to the file. This does the analogous; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02081.html (8,418 bytes)
10. RE: TAKE - Fix root exec access checks on files with acls (score: 1): Author: "Kostadin Karaivanov" <larry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:42:51 +0300; Is there any issue with gcc-3.2? I'm getting errors when I try to compile(linking stage I believe) xfsprogs with gcc-3.2. OS is slackware-surrent, glibc 2.3.1. Error is as follows: gcc -o xfs_db addr; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02083.html (9,014 bytes)
11. Re: TAKE - Fix root exec access checks on files with acls (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:04:48 +0100; gcc 3.2 and glibc 2.3 don't play nicely together without additional patches. The glibc FAQ should have a pointer to the required patch.; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02086.html (8,595 bytes)
12. RE: TAKE - Fix root exec access checks on files with acls (score: 1): Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 23 Oct 2002 10:05:53 -0500; I would guess libuuid is a good place to start :-) that library is part of the ext2 devel package.; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02087.html (9,701 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]