On Mon, 18.08.14 20:47, Ronny Chevalier ([email protected]) wrote: > > 2014-08-18 15:51 GMT+02:00 Lennart Poettering <[email protected]>: > > On Sat, 16.08.14 14:24, Ronny Chevalier ([email protected]) wrote: > > > > What's the rationale here? I think it makes a lot of sense to output an > > error if people drop non-executable files in such a directory... > > > Yeah it makes sense. But it is useless to fork & exec() when we know > it will fail so maybe leave the check and add a warning ?
Dunno. Is this a real problem? I mean, failing after the fork() shouldn't be much of a real-life problem, since it realistically never really happens. In general I always try to be careful with these cases that might be vulnerable TOCTTOU issues. Not that this was really an issue in this case, but I'd prefer if the kernel's exec() syscall would figure out that something isn't executable, rather than us, since we cannot do it atomically, and somebody could toggle the x bit of a file right after we ran access() on it, but before the exec()... Hence, I'd prefer to avoid any explicit access() check, unless we really know that this is a common issue. Hope that makes sense, Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
