Re: [systemd-devel] simple way to crash systemd via a dangling symlink

2014-05-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 27.03.14 05:18, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote: There is an interesting bug which can be used to crash systemd via a dangling symlink. For details please see [0]. To trigger the bug, you need a socket activated service. I'm using cups in this case. The steps to reproduce

Re: [systemd-devel] simple way to crash systemd via a dangling symlink

2014-05-22 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 27.03.14 05:18, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote: 2/ If a socket is in such a state, we probably shouldn't process incoming requests and try to start the service 3/ Should we stop the socket if the Load state is error So far we kept the load state and the active state quite

Re: [systemd-devel] simple way to crash systemd via a dangling symlink

2014-05-22 Thread Michael Biebl
Hi Lennart, 2014-05-22 9:59 GMT+02:00 Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net: Please test! Thanks for looking into this. Since the commits can not be cherry-picked for v204 and v208 (which I'm currently running in Debian), I can't easily test. So this will have to wait until I've upgraded to

Re: [systemd-devel] simple way to crash systemd via a dangling symlink

2014-05-21 Thread Michael Biebl
Filed this as https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76899 Would be great to have someone look at it. Having systemd crash due to something simple as a dangling symlink is pretty bad imho. 2014-03-27 5:18 GMT+01:00 Michael Biebl mbi...@gmail.com: There is an interesting bug which can be

[systemd-devel] simple way to crash systemd via a dangling symlink

2014-03-26 Thread Michael Biebl
There is an interesting bug which can be used to crash systemd via a dangling symlink. For details please see [0]. To trigger the bug, you need a socket activated service. I'm using cups in this case. The steps to reproduce are a/ Make sure cups.socket is properly configured and in state active