Re: [Freestandards-ldps] Re: LDPS 0.91 - even closer to release

["Julie" <jockgrrl@ix.netcom.com>]

From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> Julie wrote:
> > I have to agree with Andi.  I've not encountered anything in any of the
> > specs which require that the effective UID cannot change during a
> 
> You misunderstood the original comments. Linux kernels assume that
> current->euid, current->uid, current->fsuid etc are thread private. That
> avoids massive amounts of locking and the use of atomic types for these
> variables.

No, I understood it perfectly.

There's a difference between "Oops, we made a mistake" and "No,
we really are following the standard."  The Linux threading model
violates the standard.  So the correct answer is "Oops, we made a
mistake."

-- Julie.