[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New procfs implementation

From: Jeremie Koenig
Subject: Re: New procfs implementation
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 01:07:21 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

Hi, sorry I did not answer that one earlier.

On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:16:50PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Ah, so it's really not like "nobody", that's for tasks whose owner is
> > yet unknown, but potentially root-owned or such, or something like this?

These tasks (for instance the login shells) don't have any uid associated
to them, and no owner either. So it's kindof like running as "nobody",
as far as these processes are concerned.

However, the uid we publish for the procfs files determines who can read
the "environ" and "stat" files (though the latter is made world-readable
in compat mode), and we don't want to allow "nobody" to do that.

> > I don't know exactly the rules, but I feel like (uid_t) -1 might be
> > exactly what we need here.

(uid_t) -1 is what the proc server reports for tasks without an owner,
but it's not really legitimate for filesystem use (unlike the Hurd
processes, inodes have exactly one uid associated to them.)

> (...)
> You should however probably rephrase: rather than "anonymous-owner",
> which could be understood as "anybody can read it, that's fine", it
> should probably be called for instance "unknown-user", as it belongs
> to somebody, we just don't know whom.

How about "--default-owner" or "--default-uid" ?

Jeremie Koenig <jk@jk.fr.eu.org>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]