should set_unix_security_ctx() be returning an error?
tim.prouty at isilon.com
Thu Sep 13 22:23:29 GMT 2007
After talking with James and BaT on IRC yesterday, I wrote a small
patch to panic on sys_setgroups() failure. This applies cleanly to
SAMBA_3_0 and SAMBA_3_2.
--- smbd/sec_ctx.c (revision 25072)
+++ smbd/sec_ctx.c (working copy)
@@ -239,7 +239,8 @@ static void set_unix_security_ctx(uid_t
/* Start context switch */
- sys_setgroups(gid, ngroups, groups);
+ if (sys_setgroups(gid, ngroups, groups) != 0)
+ smb_panic("sys_setgroups failed");
/* end context switch */
On Sep 11, 2007, at 2:46 PM, Tim Prouty wrote:
> Jeremy and James,
> We recently ran into the setgroups bug that you fixed in June. I
> was reviewing the patches in the process of applying them, and I
> have a question about set_unix_security_ctx(). Currently it is
> void, and the comment claims that it will panic if not successful.
> sys_setgroups() returns an int that could be non-zero if:
> 1) the setgroups() syscall fails.
> 2) malloc() fails.
> Should set_unix_security_ctx() actually be returning an int or
> BOOL, so set_sec_ctx() and pop_sec_ctx() have the opportunity to
> handle the error? An error returned from setgroups() indicates an
> error in the logic of the code, and we should probably panic. What
> about the failed malloc? Should there smb_panic() be called in
> this case as well?
> Tim Prouty | Software Development Engineer
> Isilon Systems P +1-206-315-7500 F +1-206-315-7485
> www.isilon.com D +1-206-315-7494 M +1-206-963-5747
More information about the samba-technical