Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:23:38 +0100 From: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> To: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> Cc: Paul Herman <pherman@frenchfries.net>, Bill Moran <wmoran@iowna.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Security problems with access(2)? Message-ID: <20010331192338.A45841@walton.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <200103311819.f2VIJOO13998@harmony.village.org>; from imp@harmony.village.org on Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 11:18:09AM -0700 References: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0103311945010.13408-100000@husten.security.at12.de> <200103311819.f2VIJOO13998@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 11:18:09AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > 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. Don't you need fstat to do this? (In which case you may as well just open the file and fstat it anyway). David. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010331192338.A45841>