On 07/18/2012 02:25 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > Chris Adams writes: > >> Once upon a time, Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: >>> Chris Adams writes: >>>> Is there any value in this "additional check" (that nobody else >>>> apparently does)? Do you not trust the kernel's credential handling? >>> >>> I certainly trust it. But just because I trust it, it doesn't mean that any >>> additional checks have no value. >> >> Sure it does. If the credentials are always correct, additional checks >> past that are a waste of cycles. > > You feel absolutely confident that just because you can't think of any value > of additional checks, there cannot possibly be any. > > You're wrong. > >> I ask again: do you have a legitimate >> use case? Is there _any_ case that other checks can succeed that this >> invented test of yours would catch? > > I already explained what they are. Not exactly. You said: > Can you explain, then, the "correctly" approach by which an > executable can affirm whether another pid is either running the same > executable, or the post-prelinked version of the same > executable. Anyone who suggests readlinking /proc/self/exe, then > the other /proc/pid/exe, and comparing them sans any hardcoded " > (deleted)" suffix is going to get only howls of laughter, in > response. But that's not a use case. There's no way to know why you want to do this: why you care that another process is running the exact same executable. Andrew. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
