On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:59:12PM +0100, Ricardo Mestre wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are there any brave souls out there with unveil(2) enabled already?
>
> If yes please test this diff for spamlogd(8) which seems to only need rw
> access to the file PATH_SPAMD_DB and nothing else.
>
> Not asking for OKs y
Hi Robert,
Good catch! I just tested it and it still works, trying to open another file
after the pledge even with rpath/wpath promises the file won't be seen.
So in this case the unveil promise can be removed since it's no longer needed.
Thank you!
On 14:58 Wed 18 Jul , Robert Nagy wrote:
Hi
I think you should call unveil before pledge, so that you don't
need to pledge unveil.
This will prevent futher calls to unveil.
On 18/07/18 12:59 +0100, Ricardo Mestre wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are there any brave souls out there with unveil(2) enabled already?
>
> If yes please test this diff for s
Hi,
Are there any brave souls out there with unveil(2) enabled already?
If yes please test this diff for spamlogd(8) which seems to only need rw
access to the file PATH_SPAMD_DB and nothing else.
Not asking for OKs yet, but if the code pattern is correct can I start looking
at other programs?
S
Hi,
Are there any brave souls out there with unveil(2) enabled already?
If yes please test this diff for spamlogd(8) which seems to only need rw
access to the file PATH_SPAMD_DB and nothing else.
Not asking for OKs yet, but if the code pattern is correct can I start looking
at other programs?
I
