From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jun  6 05:47:44 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F30316A4CE
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun,  6 Jun 2004 05:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de
	[212.227.126.173])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053F143D2D
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun,  6 Jun 2004 05:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from se@freebsd.org)
Received: from [212.227.126.208] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de)
	by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
	id 1BWx3r-0007mp-00
	for hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:47:39 +0200
Received: from [80.132.228.215] (helo=Gatekeeper.FreeBSD.org)
	by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
	id 1BWx3r-0000xL-00
	for hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:47:39 +0200
Received: from StefanEsser.FreeBSD.org (StefanEsser [192.168.0.10])
	by Gatekeeper.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id A6B955F23; Sun,  6 Jun 2004 14:47:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by StefanEsser.FreeBSD.org (Postfix, from userid 200)
	id 21CBD2306; Sun,  6 Jun 2004 14:47:34 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 14:47:34 +0200
From: Stefan =?iso-8859-1?Q?E=DFer?= <se@FreeBSD.org>
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20040606124734.GA2687@StefanEsser.FreeBSD.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Stefan =?iso-8859-1?Q?E=DFer?= <se@FreeBSD.org>,
	hackers@freebsd.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de
	auth:fa3fae9b6ca38d745862a668565919f6
Subject: Semantics of "seteuid(uid)" vs. "setreuid(-1,uid)"
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 12:47:44 -0000

Any reason, that there is a difference in semantics between:

	seteuid(id)	vs.	setreuid(-1, id)	???

The tests performed on the arguments are different (assuming a
fixed arg of -1 for ruid) in that seteuid does not support the
case of (euid == cr_uid):

seteuid(euid):

	euid != oldcred->cr_ruid &&
	euid != oldcred->cr_svuid

setreuid(-1, euid):

	euid != oldcred->cr_uid &&
	euid != oldcred->cr_ruid &&
	euid != oldcred->cr_svuid

So seteuid() may fail in cases where setreuid() with a first argument
of -1 succeeds. The test obviously corresponds to POSIX appendix B.4.2.2
as mentioned in the comment in setuid().

Is the difference between seteuid() and setreuid() deliberate ?

I'm asking because I have received a bug report for a port, and it appears
that seteuid() on other systems is indeed equivalent to our setreuid(-1,).

Regards, STefan