Oh, and it helps to know that users on this particular system do not get access to shells. Or rather, the account shell _is_ our custom application. Bash (or ash) is there, but not exposed. It's used by admin scripts, booting, etc.
-- Jim -----Original Message----- From: busybox-boun...@busybox.net [mailto:busybox-boun...@busybox.net] On Behalf Of Cathey, Jim Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 1:24 PM To: Peter Korsgaard Cc: busybox Subject: RE: [PATCH] ping: try SOCK_DGRAM if no root privileges Doesn't really do you much good since BB is still doing its own name checks. No, it's not perfect. Making this kind of relay program a real part of BB, as a user-selectable option probably, would be best. -- Jim -----Original Message----- From: Peter Korsgaard [mailto:jac...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Peter Korsgaard Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 12:46 PM To: Cathey, Jim Cc: Laurent Bercot; Denys Vlasenko; busybox Subject: Re: [PATCH] ping: try SOCK_DGRAM if no root privileges >>>>> "Cathey," == Cathey, Jim <jcat...@ciena.com> writes: > This is on a read-only root filesystem that is built the way we want it. > (Squashfs, I believe.) There aren't any, and can't be, any links to names > we don't wish to give suid permission to. And no writable storage anywhere (E.G. a tmpfs for /tmp or similar) where you can add a handy symlink to the wrapper? -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox