Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support

2013-10-24 Thread Svante Signell
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 18:15 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Svante Signell, le Thu 24 Oct 2013 18:14:19 +0200, a écrit : > Sure, but again, what is the relation between that and having both > SCM_RIGHT and SCM_CREDS in the same message? It was a matter of constructing an if-then-else structure, t

Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support

2013-10-24 Thread Samuel Thibault
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:

Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support

2013-10-24 Thread Svante Signell
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; > > > > > >

Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support

2013-10-24 Thread Samuel Thibault
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*

Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support

2013-10-24 Thread Svante Signell
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

Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support

2013-10-24 Thread Samuel Thibault
Svante Signell, le Thu 24 Oct 2013 15:38:11 +0200, a écrit : > > Well, the question is quite simple: what happens when the sender > > provides faked ports, e.g. pointing to other proc/auth servers? That's > > where having to explain how the patch is working would possibly even > > work out the sec

Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support

2013-10-24 Thread Neal H. Walfield
At Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:38:11 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > > Well, the question is quite simple: what happens when the sender > > provides faked ports, e.g. pointing to other proc/auth servers? That's > > where having to explain how the patch is working would possibly even > > work out the securi

Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support

2013-10-24 Thread Svante Signell
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 14:34 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Svante Signell, le Thu 24 Oct 2013 13:40:02 +0200, a écrit : > > We are now checking authorization on the receive side. > > Could you explain *how* your patch is working? That is again the piece > of information which is missing in your

Re: RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support

2013-10-24 Thread Samuel Thibault
Svante Signell, le Thu 24 Oct 2013 13:40:02 +0200, a écrit : > We are now checking authorization on the receive side. Could you explain *how* your patch is working? That is again the piece of information which is missing in your patch submission. Us having to guess from the source code is not th

RFC: [PATCH] SCM_CREDS support

2013-10-24 Thread Svante Signell
Hi, New patch, now receiver centric, as requested for SCM_CREDS support for GNU/Hurd: scm_creds_sendmsg.c.diff and scm_cresd_recvmsg.c. (previous second patch, (updated scm_creds-sendmsg.c_2.diff) for the -n option, might not be used, in that case the first attached (scm_creds-sendmsg.c.diff) pa