Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 01:29:27 +0300 (MSK) From: =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= (aka Andrey A. Chernov, Black Mage) <ache@astral.msk.su> To: davidg@Root.COM Cc: committers@freebsd.org, peter@freebsd.org, security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT log_accum.pl Message-ID: <lz7XHgme-7@ache.dialup.demos.ru> In-Reply-To: <199511141406.GAA00369@corbin.Root.COM>; from David Greenman at Tue, 14 Nov 1995 06:06:24 -0800 References: <199511141406.GAA00369@corbin.Root.COM>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
In message <199511141406.GAA00369@corbin.Root.COM> David Greenman
writes:
>>> The current behavior is not inconsistent with the manual page. It says
>>>nothing about a requirement that the session *leader* must be the caller,
>>>only that it affects the current session.
>>
>>Yes, but if it isn't leader, it affects *all* sessions, not current one
>>only, it is main bug.
> Sorry, Andrey, but I don't think you know what a "session" is.
Sorry, it was quick attempt to say something different:
I mean process group from one session.
I really want to say that any root process from process
group can modify its father login name. Traditionly
son can't modify father resources in such way.
>>As manpage additionly says, it happens "only when new session is
>>being created", it assumes session leader too.
> It makes no such assumption.
Why? New session is being created after setsid() (no
usual way to do that besides setsid()),
*AND* process becomes session leader after setsid(), *SO*
it assumes session leader.
--
Andrey A. Chernov : And I rest so composedly, /Now, in my bed,
ache@astral.msk.su : That any beholder /Might fancy me dead -
http://dt.demos.su/~ache : Might start at beholding me, /Thinking me dead.
RELCOM Team,FreeBSD Team : E.A.Poe From "For Annie" 1849
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?lz7XHgme-7>