Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Did you mean "chmod"?
>
> No, I really meant chown - which just turned up another should-not-be:
> no warning is generated when trying to chown;
> chmod is even _persistent_ - for the moment.
>
Did you even bother to read my first mail? Quoting mysel
>Did you mean "chmod"?
No, I really meant chown - which just turned up another should-not-be:
no warning is generated when trying to chown;
chmod is even _persistent_ - for the moment.
>And I don't even have "smaps".
Just take any file.
Jan Engelhardt
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >This patch tries to fix the strange behaviour in /proc//,
> >where it is currently possible for the owner of a process to
> >temporarily chmod the entries.
>
> I am on 2.6.13-rc3-git5 and I do not see such behavior:
>
> 08:16 spectre:/proc/21345 # chow
>This patch tries to fix the strange behaviour in /proc//,
>where it is currently possible for the owner of a process to
>temporarily chmod the entries.
I am on 2.6.13-rc3-git5 and I do not see such behavior:
08:16 spectre:/proc/21345 # chown 1337 smaps
08:16 spectre:/proc/21345 # l -n smaps
-r-
Hi!
This patch tries to fix the strange behaviour in /proc//,
where it is currently possible for the owner of a process to
temporarily chmod the entries.
Since the inodes for these entries are only temporary, the
permissions will suddenly be reset when the cache is reclaimed.
This is confusing an
5 matches
Mail list logo
