New submission from Milko Krachounov:
When copying the mode of a file with copy, copy2, copymode, copystat or
copytree, all permission bits are copied (including setuid and setgit), but the
owner of the file is not. This can be used for privilege escalation.
An example:
-rwSr--r-- 1 milko
Milko Krachounov added the comment:
> Something's missing in all the implementations presented:
> to make sure that the new version of the file is available afer
> a crash, fsync must be called on the containing directory after
> the rename.
I upgraded my proposed approa
Milko Krachounov added the comment:
Well, since I had a typo in the main method which called the Windows
implementation on POSIX, the unit test works on the code for Windows when ran
on POSIX. Heh, I'm sorry for the noise, but it seems that re-reading the code
four times and running the
Milko Krachounov added the comment:
I have a class for overwriting files "properly" that I use in three of my
projects. It aims to be atomic as possible, supports creating backups, but it
doesn't have functions to set or retain permissions when requested (which might
be desi
Milko Krachounov added the comment:
> For the Python implementation, the GIL is not enough to
> ensure the atomicity of a process creation. That's why
> _posixsubprocess was created. I suppose that other parts
> of subprocess are not atomic and a lock is required to
> ensu
Changes by Milko Krachounov :
Removed file:
http://bugs.python.org/file20013/subprocess-cloexec-atomic-py3k-tests2-close_fds.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue7
Changes by Milko Krachounov :
Removed file:
http://bugs.python.org/file20009/subprocess-cloexec-atomic-py3k-tests1.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue7
Changes by Milko Krachounov :
Removed file:
http://bugs.python.org/file20005/subprocess-cloexec-atomic-py3k.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue7
Changes by Milko Krachounov :
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file20020/subprocess-02-cloexec_tests.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue7213>
___
___
Changes by Milko Krachounov :
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file20019/subprocess-02-cloexec_tests.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue7
Changes by Milko Krachounov :
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file20019/subprocess-02-cloexec_tests.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue7213>
___
___
Changes by Milko Krachounov :
Added file:
http://bugs.python.org/file20018/subprocess-01-atomic_cloexec_pipe2.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue7
Milko Krachounov added the comment:
OK, I have created new updated patches. I haven't combined them in one patch
because some of the changes can be applied independently, the three patches can
be cat'ed together if anyone sees separate patches a problem. ;)
I. Changes:
* Now pipe
Milko Krachounov added the comment:
I add a patch that tests close_fds (there's no test for close_fds), that
requires the tests1 patch. By the way, should there be a test for the atomicity
of the operations?
--
Added file:
http://bugs.python.org/file20013/subprocess-cloexec-a
Changes by Milko Krachounov :
Added file:
http://bugs.python.org/file20012/subprocess-pass_fd_fix_example.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue6
Changes by Milko Krachounov :
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file20011/test_pass_fds.py
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue6559>
___
___
Python-bug
Milko Krachounov added the comment:
The patch doesn't seem to work.
I added this before closerange in _close_all_but_a_sorted_few_fds:
print("Closing", start_fd, "up to", fd, "exclusive")
And used the attached script to run as a subprocess to check for o
Changes by Milko Krachounov :
Added file:
http://bugs.python.org/file20009/subprocess-cloexec-atomic-py3k-tests1.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue7
Changes by Milko Krachounov :
Removed file:
http://bugs.python.org/file20008/subprocess-cloexec-atomic-py3k-tests1.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue7
Changes by Milko Krachounov :
Added file:
http://bugs.python.org/file20008/subprocess-cloexec-atomic-py3k-tests1.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue7
Changes by Milko Krachounov :
Removed file:
http://bugs.python.org/file20007/subprocess-cloexec-atomic-py3k-tests1.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue7
Milko Krachounov added the comment:
I attached unit tests that test that cloexec is properly set. I can't test my
tests too well with the unpatched version because runtests.sh is too
complicated to use, and doesn't print any useful output by default.
--
Added f
Milko Krachounov added the comment:
I created another patch that attempts to create the pipes atomically.
On GNU/Linux, if pipe2 is available, it uses it to create the pipes, and there
is no race. On other POSIX platforms, pipe and fcntl are called without
releasing the GIL - relying on the
Milko Krachounov added the comment:
It's almost exactly the same race condition as the one described in issue 2320.
The pipes are created and stay without the CLOEXEC flag for a while (until the
process has been forked and fcntl has been called). During that time another
thread can lau
Milko Krachounov added the comment:
> I'm +1 on it, but I think it should be the default; instead,
> your proposed patch adds a new argument to the public API. Why do you
> think it's necessary to do so?
I don't think it's necessary. I put it there because whe
Changes by Milko Krachounov :
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file1/subprocess-cloexec-py3k.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue7213>
___
___
Milko Krachounov added the comment:
The cloexec approach still doesn't help with issue 2320. In fact, with
threading and people calling subprocess from multiple threads, *this* issue
wouldn't be fixed with my patch either unless mutexes are used. It's impossible
to avoid a
Milko Krachounov added the comment:
I'd offer two ideas.
1. Add a constant DISREGARD_FDS to the subprocess module could help. It would
allow the user to specify his intent, and let the implementation choose the
best action. Popen(..., close_fds=subprocess.DISREGARD_FDS) would mean tha
New submission from Milko Krachounov :
If I make a class B, and add staticmethod(A) as an attribute when B is another
class, help(B) breaks. The issue appears with Python 2.6.6, trunk, 3.1.3c1, and
py3k SVN.
Python 2.7 (trunk:86836, Nov 27 2010, 18:23:07)
[GCC 4.4.5] on linux2
Type "
Milko Krachounov added the comment:
This isn't just a documentation issue. A function named getiterator(),
for which the docs say that it returns an iterator, should return an
iterator, not just an iterable. They have different semantics and can't
be used interchangeably, so the be
Changes by Milko Krachounov :
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file15250/bench_bisect_key.py
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue4356>
___
___
Python-bug
Changes by Milko Krachounov :
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file15249/bisect-py3k.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue4356>
___
___
Python-bug
Milko Krachounov added the comment:
I've been bugged by the lack of key= argument for bisect for some time
now, and today I got to read this and the previous issues about the
matter. I still fail to understand the reasons for the rejections. It
might encourage bad design in which expensiv
New submission from Milko Krachounov :
Currently, close_fds defaults to False. The are few cases in which one
would want to leave the fds open, in all the rest leaving them open can
lead to unpleasant side effects. For example, the following doesn't work:
>>> p1 = Popen([
Milko Krachounov added the comment:
My suggestion is not only unreadable, but wrong. It's even less accurate
than hasattr(x, '__call__'), as it doesn't look in all the classes in
the MRO. Using isinstance(x, collections.Callable) should probably be
the correct replacement fo
New submission from Milko Krachounov :
hasattr(x, '__call__') has been suggested as a replacement for
callable(x) in the documentation and in the warning when running
python2.6 with -3. It is also what 2to3 replaces it with. However, the
two are not equivalent.
1. I can add a __call__
New submission from Milko Krachounov :
When subprocess.Popen.send_signal is called, it simply calls
os.kill(self.pid, ...) without checking whether the child has already
terminated. If the child has been terminated, and Popen.wait() or
Popen.poll() have been called, a process with PID self.pid
37 matches
Mail list logo
