On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 07:35 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 00:49 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Samuel Thibault, le Wed 16 Oct 2013 00:48:35 +0200, a écrit : > > > Because the receiver does not trust the sender. > > > > And that is the *whole* point of SCM_CREDS. Otherwise the sender could > > simply write a mere struct, without having to go through SCM_*. > > Do you mean sending the credentials info in the data part? Well, for > that there are no checks, are there? > > OK, I'll move the check to recvmsg.c then. No problem:) We can also do a > full re-authentication at the receive end, should that be added too? > (With a check at the receive end faulty information might be sent, > right?)
What about being paranoid, and do the check on both the transmit _and_ receive side? -- 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/1381902251.3860.67.ca...@g3620.my.own.domain
