Svante Signell, le Thu 24 Oct 2013 18:14:19 +0200, a écrit :
> On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 17:22 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, le Thu 24 Oct 2013 17:04:58 +0200, a écrit :
> > > On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 16:08 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > > Svante Signell, le Thu 24 Oct 2013 15:38:11 +0200, a écrit :
> > >
> > > > > > > + goto label;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why skipping SCM_RIGHTS support? The message may contain *both*
> > > > > > SCM_RIGHT and SCM_CREDS, we have to support that. Likewise on the
> > > > > > receiver side.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have never seen any application using that.
> > > >
> > > > That doesn't mean that we can avoid supporting it.
> > >
> > > This can easily be changed, if the -nz option is scrapped.
> >
> > What is the relation with the -nz option?
>
> Of the test code in scm_cred_senc.c:
> -z don't construct explicit credentials structure
> if (noExplicit)
> {
> /* Don't construct an explicit credentials structure. (It
> is not necessary to do so, if we just want the receiver to
> receive our real credentials.) */
> printf("Not explicitly sending a credentials structure\n");
> msgh.msg_control = NULL;
> msgh.msg_controllen = 0;
Sure, but again, what is the relation between that and having both
SCM_RIGHT and SCM_CREDS in the same message?
Samuel
