> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > sounds like a good argument to get the setuid functions marked
> > __must_check in glibc...
I agree.
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 09:28:51AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> There are too many false positives. E.g., in a SUID binaries switching
> back from a non-root UID to root will not fail. Very common.
I wouldn't call those false positives. They're warnings of poorly
written code that might fail with further changes to the kernel or with
custom security modules, or on another Unix-like platform.
Of course, the kernel or security modules must not change the semantics
arbitrarily yet expect old apps to work, however expecting that apps
honor return value from set*[ug]id() would be reasonable. (The only
reason why it is not is that there are so many broken apps out there and
more are being developed.)
Alexander
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]