Svante Signell, le Wed 16 Oct 2013 00:46:54 +0200, a écrit : > On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 00:42 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Svante Signell, le Wed 16 Oct 2013 00:40:18 +0200, a écrit : > > > On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 00:28 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > Svante Signell, le Tue 15 Oct 2013 10:33:12 +0200, a écrit : > > > > > + pids = __getpid(); > > > > > + euids = __geteuid(); > > > > > + auids = __getuid(); > > > > > + egids = __getegid(); > > > > > + agids = __getgid(); > > > > > > > > Err, which part of the protocol which check that these are actually the > > > > proper value? What prevents a process from lying its *uid and *gid > > > > values? That is part of what SCM_CREDS is supposed to provide. > > > > > > checked by the check_auth() call, is that wrong? > > > > But that is called on the sending side (sendmsg), not on the receiving > > side (recvmsg), isn't it? > > It can easily be moved to the receive side, I thought about that but did > not write a FIXME entry in the patch. What is the real need of having it > there, when it can be sorted out on the transmit side already?
Because the receiver does not trust the sender. It can only trust the proc server. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131015224835.gb5...@type.wlan.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr
