You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Anthony Howe <ac...@snert.com> on 2003/03/01 13:24:16 UTC
Re: Proposed solution for bug #16056
Has there been any further discussion of this?
Anthony Howe
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 06:14 AM 2/5/2003, Anthony Howe wrote:
>
>> Please find enclosed a proposed solution for the bug I posted
>> last month:
>>
>> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16056
>>
>> The source code comments in the patch should explain everything.
>> I'm currently testing this against Apache 2.0.44 and the next
>> release of mod_watch/4.1, which uses anonymous shared memory and
>> mutexes.
>
>
> Anthony, I like the gist of your patch, but your ownership
> observations were correct; we can't implement this patch as
> written. This was just addressed in recent Apache releases and
> will continue to be tightened, not loosened.
>
> But I like the idea so much I believe we should do the same for
> mutex objects, and eliminate unixd_set_proc_mutex_perms() and
> unixd_set_global_mutex_perms() from the mainline code.
>
> So how can we roll these into APR? That's a bitter question, since
> we open up either the internals of APR or we end up narrowing the
> functionality to some defined subset.
>
> I'm working up a list of 'objects' that might need
> permissions/uid/gid redefinition, if the process expects to setuid
> later. I'm working with that list of apr_foo_create() APIs to
> somehow pass the flag that we want this object under different
> ownership.
>
> For the ownership questions (e.g. perms, uid, gid) I'm thinking of
> a transparent structure that gets stuffed into the object's pool
> userdata. A fallback option is to modify the apr_uid_get family to
> include some apr_uid_assuming_set that identifies the 'future'
> uid/gid to be toggled a little later.
>
> Anyway, I was working with the mutex objects in Apache and all of
> the unixd_set_global_mutex_perms workarounds look just a bit
> different, between rewrite, ssl, auth_digest and the core. I'd
> like this code structure to be a whole lot cleaner, and nothing is
> cleaner than dealing with the 80/20 inside of APR itself.
>
> Bill
>
>
--
Anthony C Howe +33 6 11 89 73 78
http://www.snert.com/ ICQ: 7116561 AIM: Sir Wumpus
"Will the real email please stand up..."