[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2)
From: |
Svante Signell |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2) |
Date: |
Wed, 16 Oct 2013 00:40:18 +0200 |
On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 00:28 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, le Tue 15 Oct 2013 10:33:12 +0200, a écrit :
> > + pids = __getpid();
> > + euids = __geteuid();
> > + auids = __getuid();
> > + egids = __getegid();
> > + agids = __getgid();
>
> Err, which part of the protocol which check that these are actually the
> proper value? What prevents a process from lying its *uid and *gid
> values? That is part of what SCM_CREDS is supposed to provide.
checked by the check_auth() call, is that wrong?
- RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2), Svante Signell, 2013/10/15
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2), Samuel Thibault, 2013/10/15
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2),
Svante Signell <=
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2), Samuel Thibault, 2013/10/15
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2), Svante Signell, 2013/10/15
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2), Samuel Thibault, 2013/10/15
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2), Samuel Thibault, 2013/10/15
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2), Svante Signell, 2013/10/16
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2), Svante Signell, 2013/10/16
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2), Samuel Thibault, 2013/10/16
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2), Svante Signell, 2013/10/16
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2), Samuel Thibault, 2013/10/16
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2), Svante Signell, 2013/10/16