Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 23:25:26 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <TrimYourCc@NUXI.com> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Greg Black <gjb@gbch.net>, Bill Moran <wmoran@iowna.com> Subject: Re: Security problems with access(2)? Message-ID: <20010401232526.A9586@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010401225435.77053E-100000@fledge.watson.org>; from rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG on Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 11:02:11PM -0400 References: <20010401190458.A4991@dragon.nuxi.com> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010401225435.77053E-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 11:02:11PM -0400, Robert Watson wrote: > eaccess_file(2) - Using effective credentials, check to see if the > requested access is permitted on the file or directory identified by the > provided pathname. Why not stick to existing naming practices? eaccess() > eaccess_fd(2) - Using effective credentials, check to see if the > requested access is permitted on the file or directory associated with > the provided open file descriptor. Nope, faccess(2) (see fstat(2), flock(2), fchdir(2),...) and feaccess(2) > faccess(3) - Using effective credentials, check to see if the requested > access is permitted on the file or directory associated with the > provided open file stream. What's wrong with faccess(fileno(...)) and feaccess(fileno(...))? -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) 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?20010401232526.A9586>