Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:08:21 +0930 | From | Daryl Tester <> | Subject | Re: PROBLEM?: "permission denied" when accessing /proc/self/fd/* after setuid |
| |
Sven Wegener wrote:
> If a program wants to fiddle with an existing _file_descriptor_, it should > use the dup syscalls or access the descriptor directly.
If you have the source to the program, and can (and are allow to) modify it, then yes I agree, but that isn't always an option. And I guess why have the interface in the first place if we have dup() and friends?.
> Don't know if the behaviour of /dev/std* and /proc/self/fd/* is > standardized in some way. But I guess it's implementation-specific.
I guess that's something I was after - if this behavior was defined. My *belief* (which is questionable) is that it was to emulate dup() behavior, which it obviously isn't in this case.
>> The above environment isn't necessary to replicate the problem, although >> what stdout and stderr are attached to has some effect. The attached C >> code replicates the issue, but appears to not fail (that is, succeed) if >> /proc/self/fd/2 is a terminal (e.g. /dev/pts/X) *and* that terminal is >> owned by the same uid that the code uses (in this case, 500). In the >> case of an anonymous pipe it appears to fail consistently as the pipe is >> owned by root.
> Why should it fail for the terminal? You're the owner of it.
I didn't expect it to fail, but then I didn't expect it to fail under any condition. That it's failing for the other conditions is my beef. :-)
> Don't have a FreeBSD installation at my fingers, so can't verify. Maybe > they just don't use symlinks to represent the open files, so they do not > end up opening the original file.
According to the man page on my crufty 4.11 box:
If the file descriptor is open and the mode the file is being opened with is a subset of the mode of the existing descriptor, the call:
fd = open("/dev/fd/0", mode);
and the call:
fd = fcntl(0, F_DUPFD, 0);
are equivalent.
I don't have a more recent box handy, but the man page at <http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=stderr&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+7.0-RELEASE&format=html> infers that this is still the case.
> As said above, don't know if the behaviour is standardized.
Anybody? Bueller?
Thanks for the response; they warned me this was a high traffic list. :-)
Cheers, --dt
| |