Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 01:21:54 +0000 From: Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org> To: thomas@cuivre.fr.eu.org Cc: audit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lock(1) -v (was: VT_LOCKSWITCH) Message-ID: <20020717012154.CC5783E22@turbine.trit.org> In-Reply-To: <20020715115148.A30985@melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org>; from thomas@cuivre.fr.eu.org on "Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:51:48 %2B0200"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thomas Quinot <thomas@cuivre.fr.eu.org> wrote: > Le 2002-07-15, Dima Dorfman écrivait : > > > Anybody care to review this patch? I'd rather not commit unreviewed > > changes to a setuid root program. > > I think we'd be safer with an explicit initialization of vtyunlock. Where, why, and to what do you think it should be initialized? It's safe to assume that global variables will be initialized to 0, and it isn't used anywhere (except in tests) unless it's set to 0x2 when we lock the screen. Thanks, Dima. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020717012154.CC5783E22>