just to add (obvious!) -- whenever "uid" was mentioned I implied "uid and
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Sorry, I missed the point at issue here, and what changed when.
> > Assuming (perhaps wrongly) it's independent of filesystem type,
> > Solaris yes ok ok
> > HP-UX yes EROFS ok
> > I don't have UnixWare or OpenServer at hand to test,
> > guess UnixWare as Solaris, can report OpenServer tomorrow.
> > But it looks like a Floridan answer.
> The classical interpretation of the access(2) system call is "do the same
> type of permission check as open(2) would do but using real uid in the
> credentials instead of effective (or on Linux fs) uid". So, the typical
> logic of access() would be:
> duplicate credential structure
> replace euid with ruid (or with fsuid on Linux)
> install this tmp credential in the LWP (or task in Linux)
> do the same sort of lookupname() as open() would do
> restore saved credentials back
> All I am saying is that if open on HP/UX allows writing but access denies
> it, it is definitely a bug (in HP/UX). Let's remember why access(2) was
> invented at all -- to allow setuid-privileged programs to do permission
> checks based on real uid instead of relying on open(2) to fail. This
> should make it clear that the two (access(2) and open(2)) should behave
> identically modulo the euid->ruid transformation.
> PS. This is the sort of dicussion where openly showing snippets of
> proprietary UNIX source code would benefit but, alas, we can't...
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 21:00:22 EST