Re: [1.7] bugs in faccessat

2009-09-25 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Corinna Vinschen on 9/25/2009 2:11 AM: >> +int __stdcall check_file_access (path_conv &, int, bool effective = true); >> +int __stdcall check_registry_access (HANDLE, int, bool effective = true); > > Can you please drop the default values

Re: [1.7] bugs in faccessat

2009-09-25 Thread Corinna Vinschen
Hi Eric, thanks for the patch. Basically it looks ok, I have just two cosmetic comments inline. On Sep 24 21:35, Eric Blake wrote: > diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/security.cc b/winsup/cygwin/security.cc > index 00a8c32..8c67fc9 100644 > --- a/winsup/cygwin/security.cc > +++ b/winsup/cygwin/security

Re: [1.7] bugs in faccessat

2009-09-24 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Eric Blake on 9/3/2009 9:58 AM: > Second, it is not performing the proper checks when AT_EACCESS is set and the > applications' effective id differs from the real id (to fix this would > require > adding a parameter to fhandler_base::fh

Re: [1.7] bugs in faccessat

2009-09-21 Thread Corinna Vinschen
Hi Eric, On Sep 21 10:16, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Sep 17 18:28, Eric Blake wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > According to Corinna Vinschen on 9/3/2009 3:04 PM: > > > Thanks for the patches Eric, but, here's a problem. We still have no > > > copyright assig

Re: [1.7] bugs in faccessat

2009-09-21 Thread Corinna Vinschen
Hi Eric, On Sep 17 18:28, Eric Blake wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > According to Corinna Vinschen on 9/3/2009 3:04 PM: > > Thanks for the patches Eric, but, here's a problem. We still have no > > copyright assignment in place from you. The fcntl patch is barely > >

Re: [1.7] bugs in faccessat

2009-09-17 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Corinna Vinschen on 9/3/2009 3:04 PM: > Thanks for the patches Eric, but, here's a problem. We still have no > copyright assignment in place from you. The fcntl patch is barely > trivial, but the faccessat patch certainly isn't anymore.

Re: [1.7] bugs in faccessat

2009-09-09 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Christopher Faylor on 9/9/2009 9:59 AM: > Of course, all of the hundreds of changes that have gone into newlib > really are suspect too. Why is it ok to change something in one > directory and not another? I think (and have always though

Re: [1.7] bugs in faccessat

2009-09-09 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 02:38:22PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 09:16:57PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> On Sep 7 16:05, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 11:04:38PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Thanks for the patch

Re: [1.7] bugs in faccessat

2009-09-09 Thread Dave Korn
Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 09:16:57PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Sep 7 16:05, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 11:04:38PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: Thanks for the patches Eric, but, here's a problem. We still have no copyright

Re: [1.7] bugs in faccessat

2009-09-08 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 09:16:57PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Sep 7 16:05, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 11:04:38PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >Thanks for the patches Eric, but, here's a problem. We still have no >> >copyright assignment in place from you. T

Re: [1.7] bugs in faccessat

2009-09-08 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Sep 7 16:05, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 11:04:38PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >Thanks for the patches Eric, but, here's a problem. We still have no > >copyright assignment in place from you. The fcntl patch is barely > >trivial, but the faccessat patch certainly

Re: [1.7] bugs in faccessat

2009-09-07 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 11:04:38PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Sep 3 15:18, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 01:08:57PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >> >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> >Hash: SHA1 >> > >> >According to Eric Blake on 9/3/2009 9:58 AM: >> >> faccessat ha

Re: [1.7] bugs in faccessat

2009-09-03 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Sep 3 15:18, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 01:08:57PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > >Hash: SHA1 > > > >According to Eric Blake on 9/3/2009 9:58 AM: > >> faccessat has at least two, and probably three bugs. > > > >Here's a fix for 1 (typo)

Re: [1.7] bugs in faccessat

2009-09-03 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 01:08:57PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >Hash: SHA1 > >According to Eric Blake on 9/3/2009 9:58 AM: >> faccessat has at least two, and probably three bugs. > >Here's a fix for 1 (typo) and 3 (check for EINVAL in more places), but not >for 2 (e

Re: [1.7] bugs in faccessat

2009-09-03 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Eric Blake on 9/3/2009 9:58 AM: > faccessat has at least two, and probably three bugs. Here's a fix for 1 (typo) and 3 (check for EINVAL in more places), but not for 2 (euidaccess, and the followup request of lchmod). 2009-09-03 Eric Bl