From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Nov 26 07:33:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA24600 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 07:33:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from consys.com (consys.com [209.60.202.194]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA24595 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 07:33:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rcarter@consys.com) Received: from dnstoo.consys.com (dnstoo.ConSys.COM [209.60.202.195]) by consys.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA08636; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:32:18 -0700 (MST) Received: from dnstoo.consys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dnstoo.consys.com (8.8.8/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA17419; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:33:31 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199711261533.IAA17419@dnstoo.consys.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: Julian Elischer cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: issetugid(2) In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 25 Nov 1997 17:59:16 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:33:30 -0700 From: "Russell L. Carter" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk } }This has broken all sorts of things here. }I thought that the syscall interface for 2.2.x was being kept }unchanged. }This call makes it impossible to run binaries (e.g. vi) }compiled under 2.2.5+ on a 2.2.2 machine. }Surely the library routine that calls this }should cope with it not being in the kernel, }in the same way that Peter did his new syscalls. } }was this considered teh 'correct thing to do?' }was there discussion? } }I must have dismissed it and now it's bitten me :( } }I have many machiens on people's desks here running everything }from 2.1.0 to 2.2.5, but teh chroot environments they use are all }2.2.2. I was upgrading the chroot environment to 2.2.5(+) but }it can only be used on the newest machines, and I don't want to have to }upgrade all those machines..! } }Peter, how did you trap your new syscalls? (i can't even remember }which they were) }I'll see if I can work up a similar workaround if I can find a reference. } } }julian }(GRRR) Satoshi sent a mail about October 30th, wondering why this hadn't caused people problems. I ran into it yesterday, cvsupping a 6 month old 2.2-STABLE to whatever it is today. The buildworld and installworld went without problems but when I tried to login to user accounts or launch another xterm, oops! Bash wants issetugid. So part of the reason for this particular email is to put a note in the mail archives: make sure you rebuild bash when you update to 2.2.5+! Oh, and if I didn't have SSH configured for root, this would have been a lot more pain as the system in question doesn't have an easily accessed console... (csh doesn't need issetugid...) Russell