From owner-freebsd-bugs  Sun Feb 16 22:00:05 1997
Return-Path: <owner-bugs>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA26123
          for bugs-outgoing; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:00:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA26105;
          Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:00:03 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:00:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199702170600.WAA26105@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-bugs
Cc: 
From: mark thompson <thompson@tgsoft.com>
Subject: Re: bin/2747: at cannot be run in an atjob
Reply-To: mark thompson <thompson@tgsoft.com>
Sender: owner-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

The following reply was made to PR bin/2747; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: mark thompson <thompson@tgsoft.com>
To: mpp@freefall.freebsd.org
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: bin/2747: at cannot be run in an atjob
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:37:59 -0800 (PST)

    From: Mike Pritchard <mpp@freefall.freebsd.org>
    Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 23:04:09 -0800 (PST)
 
    mark thompson wrote:
    > 
    > You cannot submit an at job from within an at job, since the submitted
    > job will have the wrong mail address, and atrun will reject it. The
    > comments suggest that the code in question (see below) is a hangover
    > from an earlier day, and no longer appropriate.
 
    Be careful around this code.  If I remember correctly from the last
    time I mucked around in there, there are security implications
    with the whole section of code.
 
 Well, i cannot disagree that there are security implications, but the
 only thing removed is the call to getlogin, which *clearly* is not going
 to be correct within an atjob unless atrun starts doing a setlogin, and
 i was unwilling to contemplate messing with atrun.
 
 Since it *should* be possible to submit an at job from within an at job
 (works on every other unix i've tried), since the name will come from
 getpwuid(real_uid) if LOGNAME is not set (atrun sets it), and since
 atrun tries real hard to prevent spoofing, i say that this is an
 anachronism and i think it should go.
 
 SO THERE ;-)
 
 -mark