Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:56:31PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: > > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > I don't understand what you mean. The call would nevertheless replace > > > the old token so what means "noop" here? > > > > Nope, the old token isn't replaced (in the patch). > > Ouch, I misread the patch. I'm not sure we really should do that.
If the token is replaced and the application ever reverts to self (e.g. during a fork or socket dup) and reimpersonates, you are in for major confusion. There is at least another weird case. Pierre
