errata:
> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 02:03:18 +1000 (+1000)
> From: Reuben ua Bríġ
> after learning that OpenSTMP had used sytem(3) rather than execv(3)
> resulting in a bug reminiscent of the morris-worm
i had guessed it was system(3), but having now seen the advisory:
> And i am going to suggest you show a diff, and go through the process
> Ingo just described
as i said, i am new to this, and wanted to discuss something in words
before providing a C diff that would doubtless be rejected given that i
have only just begun to learn C.
i would have been happy to
Reuben ua Bríġ wrote:
> hi ingo, thanks for your reply.
>
> > I can't talk about the internals of the mount(2) syscall,
> > so i pass on that one to people who know better.
>
> !!! i feel i should emphasize,
> i am *not* presently suggesting any change to the mount(2) *system call*
> i *am*
hi ingo, thanks for your reply.
> I can't talk about the internals of the mount(2) syscall,
> so i pass on that one to people who know better.
!!! i feel i should emphasize,
i am *not* presently suggesting any change to the mount(2) *system call*
i *am* suggesting a change to the mount(8)
Hi,
Reuben ua Brig wrote:
> when OpenBSD is happy to change even man.conf
We change things when all of the following hold:
1. There is a significant problem to be solved, or a significant
profit to be gained. Regarding man.conf: the old format was
over-engineered, wordy, hard to use,
> If your proposal is to error when the check fails, it will break
> hundreds of user machines.
>
> If your proposal is to emit a warning, it will emit multiple
> additional lines of output at boot for correct existing
> configurations.
>
> But you didn't implement a prototype, you didn't test
Reuben ua Bríġ wrote:
> > I wonder why noone implimented such checks like that in the last 30
> > years. Might be because it breaks more than it fixes.
>
> i cant tell if you are being sarcastic or what it could possibly break
> or why that would matter when OpenBSD is happy to change even
> I wonder why noone implimented such checks like that in the last 30
> years. Might be because it breaks more than it fixes.
i cant tell if you are being sarcastic or what it could possibly break
or why that would matter when OpenBSD is happy to change even man.conf
Reuben ua Bríġ wrote:
> > Probably because testing for the situation would be an unreliable
> > race. BTW, you explain the ssh behaviour incorrectly. It does not
> > warn. It fails, and refuses to continue. Failure is not permitted
> > for the mount system call in this circumstance, and the
> Probably because testing for the situation would be an unreliable
> race. BTW, you explain the ssh behaviour incorrectly. It does not
> warn. It fails, and refuses to continue. Failure is not permitted
> for the mount system call in this circumstance, and the entire path
> upwards cannot be
Reuben ua Bríġ wrote:
> mount(8) will follow a symlink(7), so obviously it is *very* stupid to
> mount under a directory a user other than root has write permission for,
> as they could, for example
>
> rm -rf path
> ln -s /etc path
>
> ? so why doesnt the man page for mount(8)
mount(8) will follow a symlink(7), so obviously it is *very* stupid to
mount under a directory a user other than root has write permission for,
as they could, for example
rm -rf path
ln -s /etc path
? so why doesnt the man page for mount(8) mention anything.
? why doesnt mount(8)
12 matches
Mail list logo
