Re: Yesterday this would have worked... (fwd)

newshamwiliki.eng.hawaii.edu

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Mitch Wright: "Sun Patch Id #102060-01"
• Previous message: Timothy Newsham: "Re: regarding the (ex)preserve holes"
• In reply to: der Mouse: "Re: Yesterday this would have worked... (fwd)"

> Looks to me as though exec() sets the UID on the process per setuid
> bits before it checks for arguments too long, and doesn't take care to
> undo this properly in that case.
> 
[..]
> 
> Depends on where the bug came from.  If it's one of those ever-since-V7
> bugs it should be widespread; if it's a fumble-fingers mistake from
> BSDI it's probably not elsewhere.  I'm sure everyone can imagine
> variations.  I'm certainly going to test _my_ systems!

It might be a fumble at sctc when adding the type system.  Ie:
exec() sets type to mail, exec fails, type remains in place.

> 					der Mouse
> 			    mousecollatz.mcrcim.mcgill.edu

• Next message: Mitch Wright: "Sun Patch Id #102060-01"
• Previous message: Timothy Newsham: "Re: regarding the (ex)preserve holes"
• In reply to: der Mouse: "Re: Yesterday this would have worked... (fwd)"