Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 08:23:55 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.ru> Cc: peter@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: issetuid() Message-ID: <E0w9BbH-00057u-00@rover.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Mar 1997 17:07:48 %2B0300." <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970324170010.832A-100000@nagual.ru> References: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970324170010.832A-100000@nagual.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970324170010.832A-100000@nagual.ru> =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= writes: : Peter, as I remember you have plans to implement issetuid(). Right now too : many changes sneaked in the source tree which require it. As I think, : implementation can be done easily, just check P_SUGID bit. Also setuid() : etc syscalls must be cleaned slightly to not set this bit when not really : neccessary (i.e. when the same uid/gid is set). Do you have something for : review at this moment? There were already a bunch of other places that used the same code I did, or a variation on them. I at least tagged my with XXX should use issetugid(), others didn't. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0w9BbH-00057u-00>