On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 03:58:53PM +0100, Florian Obser wrote:
> Sorry, I'm on a phone. The diff context looks like the control FD is already
> open at this point. Does ospfd later re-open it?
>
No it does not. It deletes the control socket during shutdown.
> On October 27, 2018 11:25:58 PM
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 07:24:23PM +0100, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> Ricardo Mestre(ser...@helheim.mooo.com) on 2018.10.28 17:26:24 +:
> > Correct, and I'd go even further by not unveiling the socket at all. A few
> > weeks ago I removed the logic of unlinking the socket when the program
> >
Not all daemons have the same behaviour, so if this is still used then
Remi's diff of course makes more sense.
On 19:24 Sun 28 Oct , Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> Ricardo Mestre(ser...@helheim.mooo.com) on 2018.10.28 17:26:24 +:
> in ospfd, ospf6d (and hopefully soon bgpd) we make sure the
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 05:26:24PM +, Ricardo Mestre wrote:
> Correct, and I'd go even further by not unveiling the socket at all. A few
> weeks ago I removed the logic of unlinking the socket when the program stops,
> for a few daemons, but left untouched the ones that don't have the main
>
Ricardo Mestre(ser...@helheim.mooo.com) on 2018.10.28 17:26:24 +:
> Correct, and I'd go even further by not unveiling the socket at all. A few
> weeks ago I removed the logic of unlinking the socket when the program stops,
> for a few daemons, but left untouched the ones that don't have the
Correct, and I'd go even further by not unveiling the socket at all. A few
weeks ago I removed the logic of unlinking the socket when the program stops,
for a few daemons, but left untouched the ones that don't have the main process
pledged since it wouldn't make much difference.
If we want to go
Sorry, I'm on a phone. The diff context looks like the control FD is already
open at this point. Does ospfd later re-open it?
On October 27, 2018 11:25:58 PM GMT+02:00, Remi Locherer
wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:19:01AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> Remi Locherer wrote:
>>
>> > On
Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> Remi Locherer(remi.loche...@relo.ch) on 2018.10.27 23:25:58 +0200:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:19:01AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > Remi Locherer wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 06:01:40PM +0200, Florian Obser wrote:
> > > > > This breaks usage of
Remi Locherer(remi.loche...@relo.ch) on 2018.10.27 23:25:58 +0200:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:19:01AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Remi Locherer wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 06:01:40PM +0200, Florian Obser wrote:
> > > > This breaks usage of the "include" keyword. Something that
Remi Locherer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:19:01AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Remi Locherer wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 06:01:40PM +0200, Florian Obser wrote:
> > > > This breaks usage of the "include" keyword. Something that all the
> > > > parse.y daemons support.
>
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:19:01AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Remi Locherer wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 06:01:40PM +0200, Florian Obser wrote:
> > > This breaks usage of the "include" keyword. Something that all the
> > > parse.y daemons support.
> > >
> >
> > Oh, of course!
> >
On 2018/10/26 18:15, Remi Locherer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 06:01:40PM +0200, Florian Obser wrote:
> > This breaks usage of the "include" keyword. Something that all the parse.y
> > daemons support.
> >
>
> Oh, of course!
>
> I guess this is similar to unveil files based on a list of
Remi Locherer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 06:01:40PM +0200, Florian Obser wrote:
> > This breaks usage of the "include" keyword. Something that all the parse.y
> > daemons support.
> >
>
> Oh, of course!
>
> I guess this is similar to unveil files based on a list of command line args.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 06:01:40PM +0200, Florian Obser wrote:
> This breaks usage of the "include" keyword. Something that all the parse.y
> daemons support.
>
Oh, of course!
I guess this is similar to unveil files based on a list of command line args.
> On October 26, 2018 5:26:06 PM
This breaks usage of the "include" keyword. Something that all the parse.y
daemons support.
On October 26, 2018 5:26:06 PM GMT+02:00, Remi Locherer
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>this restricts ospfd's parent process to only read it's config file
>(reload)
>and unlink the control socket on exit. I added
Hi,
this restricts ospfd's parent process to only read it's config file (reload)
and unlink the control socket on exit. I added unveil after the setup of
the control socket is done since chmod is used in control_init.
OK?
Remi
Index: ospfd.c
16 matches
Mail list logo
