Why the PF_SUPERPRIV flag is cleared?

[rohan puri]

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Parmenides <mobile.parmenides at gmail.com>wrote:

> > This flag PF_SUPERPRI, indicates used superuser privileges and not use
> > superuser privileges.
> I get it. This is really a misunderstanding. Thanks a lot.
>
> 2011/9/8 rohan puri <rohan.puri15 at gmail.com>:
> > Hi,
> >
> >     When forking a child process, the copy_process() function will by
> > default clear the PF_SUPERPRIV flag, which indicates whether a process
> > use superuser privileges. That means a  superuser process will create
> > a child process does not has superuser privileges. I think the child
> > process of a superuser process should also be a superuser one, while
> > the child process of a normal process by default should also be a
> > normal one (except that the setuid bit of the child executable is turn
> > on). In both cases it is not necessary that the PF_SUPERPRIV flag to
> > be cleared.  So, I wonder why the PF_SUPERPRIV flag is cleared by
> > defult.
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This flag PF_SUPERPRI, indicates used superuser privileges and not use
> > superuser privileges. Which in any case, INDEPENDENT of all the processes
> > which have superuser privileges, whether they had used them or not and
> for
> > those processes which do not have superuser privileges needs to be
> cleared
> > for the child of them (since the child process has been just created and
> at
> > this point in time it has not used the superuser privileges) Its a kind
> of
> > initialization you can think of.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rohan.
> >
>
Welcome :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20110909/951c4c4b/attachment.html