Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support

[Samuel Thibault]

Svante Signell, le Thu 24 Oct 2013 18:14:19 +0200, a écrit :
> On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 17:22 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, le Thu 24 Oct 2013 17:04:58 +0200, a écrit :
> > > On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 16:08 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > > Svante Signell, le Thu 24 Oct 2013 15:38:11 +0200, a écrit :
> > > 
> > > > > > > +      goto label;
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Why skipping SCM_RIGHTS support?  The message may contain *both*
> > > > > > SCM_RIGHT and SCM_CREDS, we have to support that.  Likewise on the
> > > > > > receiver side.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I have never seen any application using that.
> > > > 
> > > > That doesn't mean that we can avoid supporting it.
> > > 
> > > This can easily be changed, if the -nz option is scrapped.
> > 
> > What is the relation with the -nz option?
> 
> Of the test code in scm_cred_senc.c:
> -z don't construct explicit credentials structure
>   if (noExplicit)
>     {
>     /* Don't construct an explicit credentials structure. (It
>        is not necessary to do so, if we just want the receiver to
>        receive our real credentials.) */
>     printf("Not explicitly sending a credentials structure\n");
>     msgh.msg_control = NULL;
>     msgh.msg_controllen = 0;

Sure, but again, what is the relation between that and having both
SCM_RIGHT and SCM_CREDS in the same message?

Samuel