bug-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New procfs implementation


From: Samuel Thibault
Subject: Re: New procfs implementation
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 21:16:50 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14

Samuel Thibault, le Thu 02 Sep 2010 01:00:14 +0200, a écrit :
> Jeremie Koenig, le Wed 01 Sep 2010 13:04:33 +0200, a écrit :
> > On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 01:06:32AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > >     { "anonymous-owner", 'a', "USER", 0,
> > > >         "Make USER the owner of files related to processes without one. 
> > > >  "
> > > >         "Be aware that USER will be granted access to the environment 
> > > > and "
> > > >         "other sensitive information about the processes in question.  "
> > > >         "(default: use uid 0)" },
> > > 
> > > Which use do you envision?
> > 
> > You may want to add an entry to /etc/passwd (say, "noone"), used only to
> > distinguish the anonymous processes from those owned by root, though as
> > the comment suggests you would have to be careful not to use it for
> > anything else.
> 
> Ah, so it's really not like "nobody", that's for tasks whose owner is
> yet unknown, but potentially root-owned or such, or something like this?
> 
> I don't know exactly the rules, but I feel like (uid_t) -1 might be
> exactly what we need here.

I don't find anything giving me assurance of this, so I guess making it
an option that defaults to 0 should be fine for now.  You should however
probably rephrase: rather than "anonymous-owner", which could be
understood as "anybody can read it, that's fine", it should probably be
called for instance "unknown-user", as it belongs to somebody, we just
don't know whom.

Samuel



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]