At 12:15 AM 9/11/2003 -0400, you wrote: >On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:05:42AM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: >>The flag PID_MAP_RW is added in the few pinfo constructors >>that need to be write into _pinfo if it exists. >>[snip] >>diff -u -p -r1.166 exceptions.cc >>--- exceptions.cc 10 Sep 2003 17:26:12 -0000 1.166 >>+++ exceptions.cc 11 Sep 2003 03:40:57 -0000 >>@@ -610,7 +610,7 @@ sig_handle_tty_stop (int sig) >> its list of subprocesses. */ >> if (my_parent_is_alive ()) >> { >>- pinfo parent (myself->ppid); >>+ pinfo parent (myself->ppid, PID_MAP_RW); >> if (NOTSTATE (parent, PID_NOCLDSTOP)) >> sig_send (parent, SIGCHLD); >> } > >The above won't need to be RW when I check in my new signal changes. >(Not that there won't be other inheritance type problems)
Yep, I kind of suspected that, but it's still needed now. I count on your solution to solve the issue of seteuid'ed children. In fact, does your solution ever write to a remote _pinfo? The PID_MAP_RW flag may have a very short life! >I'm going to hold off on checking this in until 1.5.4 is released. OK, I'd rather let it be tested for a few days. Pierre P.S.: Your announcement for 1.5.4 is OK as far as I am concerned.