Date:Sat, 09 Nov 2024 02:00:54 +0700
From:Robert Elz
Message-ID: <284.1731092...@jacaranda.noi.kre.to>
| Even though it is not at all meaningful in any naming sense, perhaps
| we could reuse the sticky bit on directories (which was once used for
| what is now t
Robert Elz wrote:
> I agree this is mostly harmless (though annoying) - but leads me to
> ponder whether or not we should have a directory permission setting
> which would allow anyone to remove their own files from a directory,
> but not create any (assuming they don't also have write permission
Hello,
20 years ago, I filed bin/27309. In short, if you use
'syslogd -u user', then syslogd can't create a pidfile
because that is done post-setuid.
My suggested fix (diff attached) is to create the
pidfile and chown it before changing UIDs. The
subsequent pidfile(3) call will happily take ove
Date:Fri, 8 Nov 2024 12:02:38 -0500 (EST)
From:Mouse
Message-ID: <202411081702.maa21...@stone.rodents-montreal.org>
| What is the intended use case for -u?
My guess would be so that the syslogd process isn't running as root,
and so can do less harm if some bug is u
Mouse wrote:
> > [I]f you use 'syslogd -u user', then syslogd can't create a pidfile
> > because that is done post-setuid.
>
> What is the intended use case for -u?
To run syslogd as an unprivileged user rather than as
root. It starts up as root to open the log sockets,
then changes euid to the
On Sat, Nov 02, 2024 at 10:36:10PM +0100, Roland Illig wrote:
> In the system headers, we use this pattern a lot:
> > #if (_POSIX_C_SOURCE - 0 >= 200809L) || defined(_NETBSD_SOURCE)
>
> Are the parentheses around the first condition really necessary? If so,
> for which cases?
>
> Is the "-
> [I]f you use 'syslogd -u user', then syslogd can't create a pidfile
> because that is done post-setuid.
What is the intended use case for -u? Or, to put it another way, why
is this something that needs fixing? My own reaction is that if you're
using -u, it's not appropriate to write the usual
