"Danny J. Zerkel" wrote:
> To quote the POSIX standard:
>
> The ipc_perm structure shall contain the following members:
>
> uid_tuidOwner's user ID.
> gid_tgidOwner's group ID.
> uid_tcuid Creator's user ID.
> gid_tcgid Creator's group ID.
> mode_t mode Read/write
correctly. To be able
> > > to run properly on other platforms (vis Solaris), they already should
> > > be using those types.
> >
> > Truncating of oversized values for credentials is Bad(tm), in that what
> > you get is a different credential. The constraint ha
On Wednesday 16 October 2002 00:43, Robert Watson wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Danny J. Zerkel wrote:
> > At least for our Linux emulation layer, supporting IPC_64 would be one
> > of the pieces (probably the main one) keeping The Sims from running.
> > The other thing we are missing is the Linux
versized values for credentials is Bad(tm), in that what
> > you get is a different credential. The constraint has to be a priori
> > enforced, or it's meaningless.
>
> I think we're in agreement here. Unfortunately, because of the "short"
> uid/gid/cu
what
> you get is a different credential. The constraint has to be a priori
> enforced, or it's meaningless.
I think we're in agreement here. Unfortunately, because of the "short"
uid/gid/cuid/cgid fields, truncation is *already* happening. That's what
we're t
Robert Watson wrote:
> I'm not convinced there's any value to providing the backward
> compatibility that has to be asked for: the only benefit to the current
> short-based API is that it allow serious security holes while not
> following the standard API offered by other platforms (except Linux).
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > You could also simply use non-intersecting cmd parameter values
> > for the new calls, which avaids the special flag, and leaves the
> > backward compatability without adding grundles of new system calls.
>
> What about source-level compatibility, which IMO is a good thin
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > And it's not like the approach you've described makes it any easier to
> > implement: you still have to break out the old and new structures since
> > changing ipc_perm breaks the ABI for all of the System V interfaces,
> > rewrite the kernel code, e
Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>
> > What about source-level compatibility, which IMO is a good thing, at
> > least if it doesn't add too much complexity (it clearly doesn't in this
> > case)? Also, handling single flag should be easier from the coding
> > per
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> What about source-level compatibility, which IMO is a good thing, at
> least if it doesn't add too much complexity (it clearly doesn't in this
> case)? Also, handling single flag should be easier from the coding
> perspective than a load of new values,
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 02:03:53AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Robert Watson wrote:
> > While I think support for the IPC_64 flag under emulation is useful, I'd
> > rather make use of compatibility system calls and type improvements for
> > the base FreeBSD implementation of the System V IPC API
Robert Watson wrote:
> While I think support for the IPC_64 flag under emulation is useful, I'd
> rather make use of compatibility system calls and type improvements for
> the base FreeBSD implementation of the System V IPC APIs. Most of the
> work necessary to support those changes is required i
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Danny J. Zerkel wrote:
> At least for our Linux emulation layer, supporting IPC_64 would be one
> of the pieces (probably the main one) keeping The Sims from running.
> The other thing we are missing is the Linux ioctl() interface for
> reading MSDOSFS directories, but that
"Danny J. Zerkel" wrote:
> At least for our Linux emulation layer, supporting IPC_64 would be one
> of the pieces (probably the main one) keeping The Sims from running.
> The other thing we are missing is the Linux ioctl() interface for reading
> MSDOSFS directories, but that may be optional.
>
>
ustedBSD Projects
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Associates Laboratories
> >
> > On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Vladimir B.
Grebenschikov,Moscow,408-7227,123-4567,Some-info wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I have found that SysVIPC functions uses structure with
TECTED] Network Associates Laboratories
>
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Vladimir B. Grebenschikov,Moscow,408-7227,123-4567,Some-info
>wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I have found that SysVIPC functions uses structure with short uid/gid types.
> >
>
, 14 Oct 2002, Vladimir B. Grebenschikov,Moscow,408-7227,123-4567,Some-info
wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I have found that SysVIPC functions uses structure with short uid/gid types.
>
> What is valid solution ?
>
> Change types to uid_t/gid_t (but this will broke binary compatibi
Hi
I have found that SysVIPC functions uses structure with short uid/gid types.
What is valid solution ?
Change types to uid_t/gid_t (but this will broke binary compatibility)
Change syscalls to old_* and add new with "right" structures,
or something else ?
struct ipc_perm {
18 matches
Mail list logo