On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 01:56:30AM +1000, Robert Elz wrote:
>     Date:        Tue, 7 Sep 1999 17:34:55 +0200
>     From:        Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.lip6.fr>
>     Message-ID:  <19990907173455.C775@antioche.eu.org>
> 
>   | There's just the deal with suid binaries, but the machinery for tacking care
>   | of this is already here.
> 
> Really?
> 
> If you mean "setuid processes don't dump core", then that's fine, as
> long as the process continues being setuid - but after it does a setuid(0)
> and then an exec or two down the chain, what's the mechanism then?

When a suid process is being run, the core name format would be reset
to the default value.

> 
> Most inherited process attributes don't matter - either they do no harm
> (that anyone knows of anyway), or they have been around so long that they
> just get cleaned up (where "so long" means that its either an ancient
> mechanism, which is well understood, or that enough bugs have been found
> that hacks have been added all over to avoid it, like a whole bunch of
> environ variables).
> 
> At the very least, I'd suggest a little bit of thought about this before
> it gets entrenched enough that when bugs are found workarounds need to be
> invented, instead of just yanking the mechanism.
> 

Agreed. That's what the list is for :)

--
Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI.           Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr
--