Messages in this thread | | | From | (David Wagner) | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fcntl.h: define AT_EACCESS | Date | Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:20:13 +0000 (UTC) |
| |
Can you share some justification why it's worth extending faccessat() with new options?
Isn't faccessat() insecure in most use cases, due to TOCTTOU (time-of-check to time-of-use) vulnerabilities? When faccessat() returns 0, you learn that at some point in the past, the process had permission to access a given file, though the process may or may not have permission at the moment. Why is that a useful thing to know?
I'm sure you're familiar with all the standard arguments why using access() tends to represent a security vulnerability. Is there a reason why similar arguments do not apply to faccessat()?
| |