Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Jean Meloche: "ppp with 2.1.109 and 2.1.114"
• Previous message: Prescott, Richard: "problem with a new block device"
• Maybe in reply to: Zachary Amsden: "[PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
• Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"

Whats next? Is he going to tell us they break signals?!? If they
really broke all those things, how would people be running the
patch?

If you read my other response I indicate the error in my statement,
and list another more important reason why the fixes are flawed enough
to not be in the mainline kernel.

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

• Next message: Jean Meloche: "ppp with 2.1.109 and 2.1.114"
• Previous message: Prescott, Richard: "problem with a new block device"
• Maybe in reply to: Zachary Amsden: "[PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
• Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"