This is the mail archive of the cygwin-patches@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Yesterday the following fragment of code from tty.cc confused me because it used small_print rather than system_printf (speedily fixed by Chris). Now I'm confused because I don't understand the logic: if (wincap.has_security () && cygserver_running == CYGSERVER_OK && (SetKernelObjectSecurity (hMainProc, ACL_SECURITY_INFORMATION, get_null_sd ()) == FALSE)) small_printf ("Can't set process security, %E"); The call to SetKernelObjectSecurity was in the file before the cygserver changes were added, i.e. the code used to be (before the first cygwin_daemon merge): if ((iswinnt) && (SetKernelObjectSecurity (hMainProc, DACL_SECURITY_INFORMATION, get_null_sd ()) == FALSE)) small_printf ("Can't set process security, %E"); On that basis, shouldn't the test for cygserver be reversed: if (... && cygserver != CYGSERVER_OK && ...) i.e. if cygserver isn't running, act as before? I don't understand quite this code is trying to achieve or why but, assuming it's wrong, I've attached a patch to reverse the test. I've checked this on the cygwin_daemon branch, both with and without cygserver running, and can see no difference (this is with both processes running as the same user tho'). If someone could confirm / deny / explain this or even just wave their hands around a bit and waffle, it would make me happier :-) // Conrad
Attachment:
tty.patch
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
ChangeLog.txt
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |