From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Mar 31 10:19:37 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0315437B718
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 10:19:34 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org)
Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1])
	by harmony.village.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2VIJOO13998;
	Sat, 31 Mar 2001 11:19:24 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org)
Message-Id: <200103311819.f2VIJOO13998@harmony.village.org>
To: Paul Herman <pherman@frenchfries.net>
Subject: Re: Security problems with access(2)? 
Cc: Bill Moran <wmoran@iowna.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:49:48 +0200."
		<Pine.BSF.4.33.0103311945010.13408-100000@husten.security.at12.de> 
References: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0103311945010.13408-100000@husten.security.at12.de>  
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 11:18:09 -0700
From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

In message <Pine.BSF.4.33.0103311945010.13408-100000@husten.security.at12.de> Paul Herman writes:
: Shouldn't the stat(2) manpage then also carry the same warning that
: access(2) has (apparently dating back to 4.4BSD-Lite)?  ...or maybe
: even a suggestion to use fstat(2) instead...

No.  stat can be used safely.  In fact, it can even be used to detect
when the old switch-er-ooo has taken place on file systems that
conform to the POSIX standard.  However, it does take some care to use 
it safely.

Warner

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message