Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 03:50:03 -0800 (PST) From: Johan Karlsson <johan@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/13108: authunix_create_default includes egid twice Message-ID: <200210291150.g9TBo3OT027661@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR bin/13108; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Johan Karlsson <johan@freebsd.org> To: Bug followup <bug-followup@freebsd.org> Cc: Subject: Re: bin/13108: authunix_create_default includes egid twice Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:43:08 +0100 Adding this to the audit-trail. ----- Forwarded message from David Mazieres <dm@scs.cs.nyu.edu> ----- From: David Mazieres <dm@scs.cs.nyu.edu> To: johan@FreeBSD.org Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/13108: authunix_create_default includes egid twice Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:21:44 -0500 (EST) > Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:31:29 -0800 (PST) > From: Johan Karlsson <johan@FreeBSD.org> > > Synopsis: authunix_create_default includes egid twice > > State-Changed-From-To: open->closed > State-Changed-By: johan > State-Changed-When: Mon Oct 28 13:29:08 PST 2002 > State-Changed-Why: > The code in question was removed in rev 1.13 of > src/lib/libc/rpc/auth_unix.c > > If there is a problem with the new code please > open a new PR. > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=13108 The new code seems to have the same problem. The new version of authunix_create_default() is: if ((len = getgroups(NGRPS, gids)) < 0) abort(); /* XXX: interface problem; those should all have been unsigned */ return (authunix_create(machname, (int)uid, (int)gid, len, (int *)gids)); I think this code should be: if ((len = getgroups(NGRPS, gids)) < 1) abort(); /* XXX: interface problem; those should all have been unsigned */ return (authunix_create(machname, (int)uid, (int)gid, len-1, (int *)gids + 1)); Either that, or you should change nfsm_rpchead in nfsclient/nfs_subs.C. Currently, the fact that authunix_create_default and the kernel create different AUTHUNIX credentials is a pain for SFS (a FreeBSD-compatible network file system that I work on--see www.fs.net). I realize that my needs are somewhat esoteric. I certainly don't expect you to put in a change just because it is good for SFS. However, just on simple aesthetic grounds, doesn't it make sense for the kernel and libc to be consistent with each other? Can't FreeBSD just decide if the AUTHUNIX parms should contain a second copy of the egid in the grouplist, and then have both libc and the kernel do the same thing? Of course, at this point, if you were to change the kernel, it would make things even worse for me, because right now there is no way of autoconfing FreeBSD's behavior. I have hard-coded the current kernel behavior into SFS if the OS name is FreeBSD. Thanks, David ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Johan Karlsson mailto:johan@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200210291150.g9TBo3OT027661>