On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> Which doesn't take very long to arrange. Relying on pids is definitely a
> security problem we don't want to make worse than it already is.
The thing is, the current code is _worse_.
MUCH worse.
And it's worse exactly because it does things really wrong. The suggested
patch then just _continues_ to do things really wrong, and then tries to
paper over the bugs.
Which is why I refuse to apply it. Use a pid and do it right.
If the code cannot be made to use fasync itself, then it can at least be
made to do the same _checks_ that fasync does (easy enough: just save away
uid/euid, and do the same signal checks by hand). Until such a time than
the driver writer sees the light.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |