On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 20:46 +0100, Kees Jongenburger wrote: > On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Scott James Remnant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 15:39 +0200, Stef Bon wrote: > > > >> Are you also planning to add this feature to upstart?? Or is it already > >> possible to do this?? I cannot find an event name for "session added" > >> and "session removed"... > >> > > Events can be sent from any other process via D-Bus or by using "initctl > > emit" > > That brings me to the following question: > Isn't there a security problem with the current emit model. I am > thinking of the scenario where you want some process to send an event > you can't really block it from sending a different event? I know most > init script run as root anyway > but just wonder what can be made possible specially if a end user > needs to send events > Do you mean that you cannot restrict events to particular processes?
I wouldn't want to introduce a security model for such things without having it first properly thought out, e.g. restricting to pids is probably not sufficient since it prevents use of helper/worker processes and suchforth (not to mention calling initctl) But I'm not adverse to having a model. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- upstart-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/upstart-devel
