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

David S. Miller (davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com)
Tue, 4 Aug 1998 20:51:51 -0700

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: David S. Miller: "Re: gcc 2.7.2.3 vs gcc 2.8.1"
Previous message: Terry L Ridder: "Re: DEVFSv50 and /dev/fb? (or /dev/fb/? ???)"
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"

From: linker@z.ml.org
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 23:27:53 -0400 (EDT)

Because not all apps are maintained.

This argument is utter crap when used as a reason to place something
in the kernel. I don't understand why people keep using it.

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: David S. Miller: "Re: gcc 2.7.2.3 vs gcc 2.8.1"
Previous message: Terry L Ridder: "Re: DEVFSv50 and /dev/fb? (or /dev/fb/? ???)"
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"