Alan Cox wrote:
On Llu, 2005-08-29 at 11:54 +0800, qiyong wrote:
We can ignore it safely. sys_promote is a different approach from
selinux. sys_promote is to let sysadmin manually manipulate a running
process,
You can ignore the patch easily enough. Ignoring the locking doesn't
wor
Ulrich Drepper wrote:
On 8/29/05, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fixing it might be useful in some obscure cases anyway - POSIX threads
might benefit from it too, providing the functionality of changing all
thread uids at once isnt triggered for sensible threaded app behaviour.
I
må den 29.08.2005 Klokka 13:29 (+0100) skreiv Alan Cox:
> You can ignore the patch easily enough. Ignoring the locking doesn't
> work because functionality like fork process counting, exec, and setuid
> all make definite assumptions that are not safe to tamper without unless
> you fix the uid locki
On Llu, 2005-08-29 at 11:54 +0800, qiyong wrote:
> We can ignore it safely. sys_promote is a different approach from
> selinux. sys_promote is to let sysadmin manually manipulate a running
> process,
You can ignore the patch easily enough. Ignoring the locking doesn't
work because functionalit
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 16:16 +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
[...]
> >(almost) every tool may become a security problem.
> >If you fear a bug in sudo, then write a minimal setuid wrapper for
> >yourself which checks for the user it started and exec's a binary (with
> >the fu
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 11:55 +0800, qiyong wrote:
Erik Mouw wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 05:25:37PM +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
I just wrote a tool with kernel patch, which is to set the uid's of a running
process without FORK.
The tool is at http:/
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 11:55 +0800, qiyong wrote:
> Erik Mouw wrote:
> >On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 05:25:37PM +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> >>I just wrote a tool with kernel patch, which is to set the uid's of a
> >>running
> >>process without FORK.
> >>
> >>The tool is at http://users.freeforge.net
Erik Mouw wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 05:25:37PM +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
I just wrote a tool with kernel patch, which is to set the uid's of a running
process without FORK.
The tool is at http://users.freeforge.net/~coywolf/pub/promote/
Usage: promote [uid]
I once need such a too
Alan Cox wrote:
On Gwe, 2005-08-26 at 19:02 +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
3) admins can `promote' a suspect process instead of killing it.
Is it also generally useful in practice? Thoughts?
The locking is wrong. At the moment the entire kernel assumes that a
process uid is not cha
On Gwe, 2005-08-26 at 19:02 +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> > 3) admins can `promote' a suspect process instead of killing it.
> >
> > Is it also generally useful in practice? Thoughts?
The locking is wrong. At the moment the entire kernel assumes that a
process uid is not changed by anyone else
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 05:25:37PM +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> I just wrote a tool with kernel patch, which is to set the uid's of a running
> process without FORK.
>
> The tool is at http://users.freeforge.net/~coywolf/pub/promote/
> Usage: promote [uid]
>
> I once need such a tool to work
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 05:25:37PM +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just wrote a tool with kernel patch, which is to set the uid's of a running
> process without FORK.
>
> The tool is at http://users.freeforge.net/~coywolf/pub/promote/
> Usage: promote [uid]
>
> I once need such a t
Hello,
I just wrote a tool with kernel patch, which is to set the uid's of a running
process without FORK.
The tool is at http://users.freeforge.net/~coywolf/pub/promote/
Usage: promote [uid]
I once need such a tool to work together with my admin in order to tune my web
configuration. I think
13 matches
Mail list logo
