[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:2.480 / U:31.484 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site