OK, great, somehow I missed that.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:00:05AM -0800, Andy Zhou wrote: > No. I have Acked the change. > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:09:46PM +0900, Takashi Yamamoto wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Andy Zhou <az...@nicira.com> wrote: > >> > I am going by the advice of paper " The Murky Issue of Changing > >> > Process Identity: Revising “Setuid Demystified” " > >> > > >> > On page 7, it says: > >> > > >> > Specifically, all OSes that support getresuid (see Figure 3) also > >> > support setresuid and setresgid. These offer the clearest and most > >> > consistent semantics, and can be used by privileged and non-privileged > >> > processes alike. > >> > > >> > According to the paper, setuid() may or may not change saved uid, it > >> > is OS dependent and may only change effective uid in cause current uid > >> > is not > >> > zero. > >> > > >> > Also according to the same paper in Figure 3, getresuid() is supported > >> > by Linux, HPUX, FreeBSD and OpenBSD, it would be nice to let those OS > >> > use this API. For NetBSD, we can resolve this by emulating the > >> > getresuid() call. Make sense? > >> > >> well, this fallback code is currently for FreeBSD and NetBSD, > >> for which the semantics are consistent, right? > > > > Andy, any further comments on this? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
