linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200608201847.05707.mb@bu3sch.de>
Date:	Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:47:05 +0200
From:	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
To:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc:	Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>,
	Alex Riesen <fork0@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	Willy Tarreau <wtarreau@...a.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits

On Sunday 20 August 2006 18:28, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > sounds like a good argument to get the setuid functions marked
> > __must_check in glibc...
> 
> There are too many false positives.  E.g., in a SUID binaries switching
> back from a non-root UID to root will not fail.  Very common.

Well, I would say it clearly depends on the actual kernel
implementation if that can fail or not.
So userspace should really always check.

-- 
Greetings Michael.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/