[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 00:49:22 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21+34 (58baf7c9f32f) (2010-12-30) |
Samuel Thibault, le Wed 16 Oct 2013 00:48:35 +0200, a écrit :
> Because the receiver does not trust the sender.
And that is the *whole* point of SCM_CREDS. Otherwise the sender could
simply write a mere struct, without having to go through SCM_*.
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, 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 <=
- 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
- Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support 1(2), Samuel Thibault, 2013/10/16