[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2)
From: |
Samuel Thibault |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2) |
Date: |
Wed, 16 Oct 2013 00:42:01 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21+34 (58baf7c9f32f) (2010-12-30) |
Svante Signell, le Wed 16 Oct 2013 00:40:18 +0200, a écrit :
> 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?
But that is called on the sending side (sendmsg), not on the receiving
side (recvmsg), isn't it?
Samuel
- 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, 2013/10/15
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2),
Samuel Thibault <=
- 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
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2), Samuel Thibault, 2013/10/16