On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 02:00:27 +0700, Antoine Martin wrote: > >+ /* XXX ouch, coudn't get back to original uid > >+ what can we do ??? */ > > > >If we get to this point, the code in the patch has failed. It should > >apologize deeply and offer your phone number for technical support :) > >Seriously, it should print an "internal error" message of some kind, > >maybe including __function__. Just quitting silently and leave a > >cryptic 127 that might or not propagate to the user does not cut it. > Added a more helpful message. Notes: > * most platforms I can get hold of now have "getresuid" or > "issetugid", so this is unlikely to fire in the real world > * when it does fire, the chances that setuid(0) does not fail but > setuid(!=0) does is slim. > > > > >+ _exit(127); > Changed to plain exit(127) > > >Why do you use _exit() and not exit() here? This is not e.g. a forked > >child that should escape normal clean-up? > Are there are risks in calling the exit hooks as root? I can't see any. > FatalError seems like the right thing to call here, not exit?
Cheers, Julien _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
