From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 11 07:55:52 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D4A916A4CE; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:55:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from acampi.inet.it (acampi.inet.it [213.92.1.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2114543D2F; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:55:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andrea@acampi.inet.it) Received: by acampi.inet.it (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4F50FB; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:55:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:55:51 +0200 From: Andrea Campi To: Gleb Smirnoff Message-ID: <20041011075551.GC37395@webcom.it> References: <200410082115.i98LFLMU034965@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041009153916.GA2003@webcom.it> <20041009212952.GA8922@cell.sick.ru> <200410082115.i98LFLMU034965@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041009153916.GA2003@webcom.it> <20041009190714.GB1093@green.homeunix.org> <20041010072205.GA1617@webcom.it> <20041010101612.GB11523@cell.sick.ru> <20041011072514.GA37395@webcom.it> <20041011074834.GC17393@cell.sick.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041011074834.GC17393@cell.sick.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: Brian Fundakowski Feldman cc: so@freebsd.org cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen syslog.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:55:52 -0000 Gleb, On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:48:34AM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > Andrea, > > dwmalone promised to spent some time on this. We together will find > some better approach then reverting commit, or leaving it untouched. > One of current working ideas is to create an additional socket for > priveleged applications, runnning with uid 0, which can't be considered > attackers. Use different policies on these two sockets: priveleged > and default. Thanks, that sounds like an excellent plan and I trust the two of you will come up with a good compromise. In case you are interested, I'm volunteering to look at and test both design and actual patches. Bye, Andrea -- The best things in life are free, but the expensive ones are still worth a look.