On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 06:24:28PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> But make sure that doesn't cause bugs to not get reported at all
> because the process causes too much work or takes too long. :)
>
Oh yeah, no worries! :-)
Hi Jesper,
Jesper Wallin wrote on Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 06:09:03PM +0200:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 03:23:16PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> 3. Jesper, including a patch according to the best of your
>> understanding is always welcome. Even if it turns out to be a
>> bad patch,
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 03:23:16PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>
> 3. Jesper, including a patch according to the best of your
> understanding is always welcome. Even if it turns out to be a
> bad patch, because often even a bad patch helps to understand
> what the OP thinks the
Hi,
Bryan Steele wrote on Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 01:53:49PM -0400:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:03:03AM +0200, Jesper Wallin wrote:
>> Oh, you're right. A bit ironic that I didn't notice the exec violation
>> due to the fork being permitted now. Thanks for pointing this out!
>> Scrap my old
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 05:57:32PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Bryan Steele wrote on Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 06:14:56PM -0400:
> > On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:03:03AM +0200, Jesper Wallin wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 05:14:03PM -0400, Bryan Steele wrote:
>
> >>> I suspect that in
Hi,
Bryan Steele wrote on Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 06:14:56PM -0400:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:03:03AM +0200, Jesper Wallin wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 05:14:03PM -0400, Bryan Steele wrote:
>>> I suspect that in secure/-S mode, the :pre[serve] should either be
>>> disabled, or modified to
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:03:03AM +0200, Jesper Wallin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 05:14:03PM -0400, Bryan Steele wrote:
> > I suspect that in secure/-S mode, the :pre[serve] should either be
> > disabled, or modified to stop calling sendmail. The mail it is sending
> > is purely advisory,
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 05:14:03PM -0400, Bryan Steele wrote:
> I suspect that in secure/-S mode, the :pre[serve] should either be
> disabled, or modified to stop calling sendmail. The mail it is sending
> is purely advisory, and should be easy to disable. See common/recover.c.
Oh, you're right.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 09:43:14PM +0200, Jesper Wallin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> When using vi(1) with secure mode (-S), both 'proc' and 'exec' are
> stripped from the pledge promise. This breaks the :pre[serve] command
> as it uses fork(2). This is broken on 6.4, 6.5 and -current.
>
> Re-add the
