Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-31,: Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds

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

David S. Miller (davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com)
Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:47:05 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Alexander Kjeldaas: "Re: CIPE - Encrypted IP Encapsulation"
- Previous message: Martin Mares: "PCI patch for 2.1.114"
- Maybe in reply to: Zachary Amsden: "[PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Reply: Jon Lewis: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"

Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 12:35:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jon Lewis <jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net>

If every time a kernel patch broke something, that patch were
forever banned from becoming part of the standard kernel source
(even after the problems are fixed), we'd still be running
something very similar to 1.0.x.

True.

However I still contend that this is an ass-backwards way to fix
bugs in software.

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: Alexander Kjeldaas: "Re: CIPE - Encrypted IP Encapsulation"
- Previous message: Martin Mares: "PCI patch for 2.1.114"
- Maybe in reply to: Zachary Amsden: "[PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"
- Reply: Jon Lewis: "Re: [PATCH] [SECURITY] suid procs exec'd with bad 0,1,2 fds"