lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Further shmctl() SHM_LOCK strangeness
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Michael Kerrisk wrote:

> I don't think this is sufficient -- there must
> be protection against arbitrary SHM_LOCKs.

Why? We already have ulimits do that...

> How about the following:
>
> For *both* SHM_LOCK and SHM_UNLOCK, the process should either
> be the owner or the creator of the object or have the
> CAP_IPC_LOCK capability.

It makes a lot of sense, but I don't know whether or not
it'd break any applications...

--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site