Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:53:36 -0400 From: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_descrip.c kern_exec.c src/sys/sys filedesc.h Message-ID: <20020423105336.E72727@espresso.q9media.com> In-Reply-To: <20020423030714.U24733-100000@patrocles.silby.com>; from silby@silby.com on Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 03:10:01AM -0500 References: <20020422160742.B8421@espresso.q9media.com> <20020423030714.U24733-100000@patrocles.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> writes:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote:
>
> > I agree that the current solution to this problem is wrong. I think
> > the most correct solution would be to fix each set[ug]id program to
> > ensure that it has a working set of the basic std{in,out,err}
> > descriptors by making a series of fstat() calls and watching for a
> > EBADF.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Mike Barcroft
>
> But... if you go through and fix the bugs in the various set[ug]id
> programs, doesn't that make the kernel change a no-op? And in that case,
> what's the harm in having such a feature in the kernel?
See the prior discussion; it breaks conformance to the Standard.
There's no reason a conforming program couldn't use closed file
descriptors to relay a message to a an exec()'d process, for instance.
Best regards,
Mike Barcroft
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020423105336.E72727>