On Mer, 2003-07-23 at 17:56, Glenn Fowler wrote:
> you can eliminate the security implications for all fd types by
> simply translating
> open("/dev/fd/N",...)
> to
> dup(atoi(N))
> w.r.t. fd N in the current process
This has very different semantics. Consider lseek().
> otherwise there is a bug in the /dev/fd/N -> /proc/self/fd/N implementation
> and /dev/fd/N should be separated out to its (original) dup(atoi(N))
> semantics
I don't see a bug. I see differing behaviour between Linux and BSD on a
completely non standards defined item. Also btw nobody ever really wrote
a /dev/fd/ for Linux - it was just a byproduct of the proc stuff someone
noticed. I guess someone could write a Plan-9 style dev/fd or devfdfs
for Linux if they wanted.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 22:00:50 EST