Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits

On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 10:23:35AM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
> How about going ahead with the uid change (if the current user is root) 
> BUT still return -EAGAIN.  That way programs that ignore the return 
> value will at least no longer have root privileges.

That's bad.  It will break legitimate programs that assume that the
UID switch has failed if set*uid() indicates so with its return value.

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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits
    • From: Solar Designer <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits
    • From: Solar Designer <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits
    • From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] introduce CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF_AOUT
• Next by Date: Re: Linux 2.4.34-pre1
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits
• Next by thread: boot failure, "DWARF2 unwinder stuck at 0xc0100199"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]