On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 01:00:56PM +0000, Robert Watson wrote: > Only if IPC_M is being requested. Is IPC_M being requested in the case > where you are seeing an error? I can read code too, so what I'm asking is > how the system is behaving. I'll track exact case a bit later. For now I just speak about differences between new code and old code I found. New code check all bits match while old code check IPC_M bit match only at this place. > is requested. We grant valid rights, not all rights, to the super user. This is clearly wrong. Think about files. Even file is read-only, root _can_ write into it while normal user in the same situation can't. root> touch aaa root> chmod 444 aaa root> cat > aaa OK ^D > As I said, this is something that I hope to revisit in the next few days. > However, it would be helpful if you could tell me the arguments and call > path to the ipcperm() function instance that's generating the improper > failure. It could be that both a bug in ipcperm() and a big in shmget() I'll try to make ktrace output, a bit later. -- http://ache.pp.ru/Received on Sat Dec 16 2006 - 12:11:40 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:04 UTC