[issue15159] Add failover for follow_symlinks and effective_ids where possible

2012-06-24 Thread Larry Hastings
Larry Hastings added the comment: I think you're right. As Antoine pointed out in irc, for POSIX platforms, modules in os are almost exclusively atomic. This is a useful (if undocumented) feature from a security viewpoint, and we should not break it lightly. Closing as wontfix. If someone

[issue15159] Add failover for follow_symlinks and effective_ids where possible

2012-06-24 Thread Antoine Pitrou
Antoine Pitrou added the comment: I don't like this idea. Normally the system calls wrapped by the os module are fairly atomic. Here you're introducing the possibility for potentially nasty race conditions and exploits. -- nosy: +neologix ___ Pytho

[issue15159] Add failover for follow_symlinks and effective_ids where possible

2012-06-24 Thread Hynek Schlawack
Hynek Schlawack added the comment: It also passes OS X. There are no patch specific tests though. And alas, I don't have any platform at hand that would benefit from these additions. :( The idea sounds good to me and the code LGTM though. However I can't really say much as I couldn't actuall

[issue15159] Add failover for follow_symlinks and effective_ids where possible

2012-06-23 Thread Larry Hastings
New submission from Larry Hastings : Serhiy Storchaka suggested (in private email, not on tracker or python-dev): why not make follow_symlinks and effective_ids failover where possible? Let's take the example of effective_ids first, that's simpler. Let's say the user calls os.access("x", os