Re: setXid

[Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>]

> > I have never been in favor of a per-thread ID extension.
> 
> They definitely want to preserve this and therefore any kernel solution
> is as nonatomic as the userlevel implementation. (not my analysis).

Like I said, they haven't been presented with an implementation yet.  What
I would propose would allow such an extension and also implement correct
semantics when you are not using it.  It's pointless to speculate about
what others would or wouldn't say in circumstances that don't exist yet.

> I think this is as good as we'll get it any time soon (or ever).

Assuming you are talking about the simulation of almost correct semantics,
that may be.  My point about that was that we should make sure that people
are aware of the "almost" and what it means.

You did not respond at all to my objection to your glibc extension
functions.  Please say something about how you intend these to be
acceptable features.  As they stand, it's necessary for me to absolutely
refuse to cooperate with their inclusion in glibc, and warn people away
from using nscd as it is.  Let's talk about what features we really do
want, and about getting them fully specified and securely implemented.


Thanks,
Roland