How much should we work around buggy Solaris/OpenIndiana/Illumos > 16 groups bugs?
ira at samba.org
Mon Jun 10 12:37:37 MDT 2013
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 08:12:59PM +0200, Björn Jacke wrote:
> > On 2013-06-10 at 10:32 -0700 Jeremy Allison sent off:
> > > tl;dr. It's a harmless change as far as I can see. It makes
> > > things universally better for Solaris OS's.
> > >
> > > Why should we not do this ?
> > because other userspace programms most probably don't fix the kernel bug
> > userspace by sorting the groups and thus other processes might access
> data that
> > should not be accessable. By adding the qsort workaround we actively
> > those systems not to get fixed and leave a known security hole
> (deny-ACEs being
> > of users with > 16 groups possibly being unevaluated) open.
> I'm sorry, but this is a real stretch.
> If we can make this work without harm to Samba,
> and Andrews' patch does just that, then we should
> do so.
> Saying things like:
> "we actively support those systems
> not to get fixed and leave a known security hole"
> just makes us sound like completely sanctimonious
> pricks. We're not in charge of security at Illumos,
> we just need to make Samba work the best it can
> for the most users.
> Let's just fix this in our code and move on.
Can someone point me at the actual illumos issue that was raised in their
I know Andrew raised one, but as I remember, that one wandered off track.
This is very specific, and I'd guess most illumos devs could fix it
promptly. Heck, if it stops people from being as Jeremy so nicely put it
pricks", it's something I can probably do.
But, that said, there ARE broken systems, and there will be broken systems,
so some workaround will be needed... and probably for a long time given the
lifetime of Solaris systems.
So detecting it might be nice... Can someone "detect" it if I "fix" it.
More information about the samba-technical