Hi! > > Basically, that follow link should behave as dup(), not as open(). > > There are reasons why an open is an open here. I don't remember the > details but I found the archive of that conversation once. Maybe it was > just technical limitations of the time. That would be really really useful to bring > >> I certainly am not interested in debugging or maintaining the stacking > >> inode code that would be necessary to close this theoretical corner > >> case. There are much more real bugs that need attention. > > > > But if we can get trivial 10-liner, that should be acceptable, right? > > How many linux shell scripts and other applications that use /dev/fd/N > or /proc/self/fd/N will you be breaking? Zero. (Well unless someone is exploiting it in wild). > Closing a theoretical security hole at the expense of breaking real > applications is a show stopper. I don't plan to remove /proc/*/fd; but I would like it to behave like dup(). (I still hope some security team does work for me :-). Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
