d/freebsd-skq
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

o So, when <dd> e-mailed me and said that the comment was inverted

Browse Source 
for securelevel_ge() and securelevel_gt(), I was a little surprised,
  but fixed it.  Turns out that it was the code that was inverted, during
  a whitespace cleanup in my commit tree.  This commit inverts the
  checks, and restores the comment.
This commit is contained in:
rwatson 2001-09-25 21:08:33 +00:00
parent c6a3ab8fc6
commit 0ae354be64
1 changed files with 6 additions and 6 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

12
sys/kern/kern_prot.c
View File

@ -1302,8 +1302,8 @@ suser_xxx(cred, proc, flag)
/*
* Test securelevel values against passed required securelevel.
* _gt implements (securelevel > level), and _ge implements
* (securelevel >= level). Returns 0 oer EPERM.
* _gt implements (level > securelevel), and _ge implements
* (level >= securelevel). Returns 0 oer EPERM.
*
* cr is permitted to be NULL for the time being, as there were some
* existing securelevel checks that occurred without a process/credential
@ -1320,12 +1320,12 @@ securelevel_gt(struct ucred *cr, int level)
if (cr == NULL) {
printf("securelevel_gt: cr is NULL\n");
if (securelevel > level)
if (level > securelevel)
return (0);
else
return (EPERM);
} else {
if (securelevel > level)
if (level > securelevel)
return (0);
else
return (EPERM);
@ -1338,12 +1338,12 @@ securelevel_ge(struct ucred *cr, int level)
if (cr == NULL) {
printf("securelevel_ge: cr is NULL\n");
if (securelevel >= level)
if (level >= securelevel)
return (0);
else
return (EPERM);
} else {
if (securelevel >= level)
if (level >= securelevel)
return (0);
else
return (EPERM);