From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 22 01:39:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA16812 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 01:39:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from trojanhorse.ml.org (mdean.vip.best.com [206.86.94.101]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA16807 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 01:39:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jamil@trojanhorse.ml.org) Received: from localhost (jamil@localhost) by trojanhorse.ml.org (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA09787; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 01:38:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 01:38:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jamil J. Weatherbee" To: Joerg Wunsch cc: FreeBSD hackers Subject: Re: Possible SERIOUS bug in open()? In-Reply-To: <19971022093040.UM28723@uriah.heep.sax.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, J Wunsch wrote: > As explorer@flame.org wrote: > > > This was sent to me recently... It seems to be a pretty serious hole > > in open() and permissions... > > Fixed. How exactly did you fix it, this is related to what I was saying about opening a file as RD_ONLY and WR_ONLY, because if oflags = -1 then fflags = 0 and that means the file is not open for read or write which my point was that it should be forced to be open for one or the other. I don't rememer who, but someone seemed to think that it could be actually useful to hav a file not open for read or write > -- > cheers, J"org > > joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE > Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) >