Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 16:11:35 +0300 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@FreeBSD.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: sysv_ipc.c broken in v1.30 (was Re: sysvshm appearse broken in -current) Message-ID: <20061216131135.GA1393@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20061216125419.J72986@fledge.watson.org> References: <20061216055903.GA2712@nagual.pp.ru> <20061216111656.GA7501@nagual.pp.ru> <20061216112117.P72986@fledge.watson.org> <20061216114426.GA7735@nagual.pp.ru> <20061216120746.E72986@fledge.watson.org> <20061216125136.GA1094@nagual.pp.ru> <20061216125419.J72986@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 01:00:56PM +0000, Robert Watson wrote: > Only if IPC_M is being requested. Is IPC_M being requested in the case > where you are seeing an error? I can read code too, so what I'm asking is > how the system is behaving. I'll track exact case a bit later. For now I just speak about differences between new code and old code I found. New code check all bits match while old code check IPC_M bit match only at this place. > is requested. We grant valid rights, not all rights, to the super user. This is clearly wrong. Think about files. Even file is read-only, root _can_ write into it while normal user in the same situation can't. root> touch aaa root> chmod 444 aaa root> cat > aaa OK ^D > As I said, this is something that I hope to revisit in the next few days. > However, it would be helpful if you could tell me the arguments and call > path to the ipcperm() function instance that's generating the improper > failure. It could be that both a bug in ipcperm() and a big in shmget() I'll try to make ktrace output, a bit later. -- http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061216131135.GA1393>