Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2002/01/04/01:58:43
> hey ho,
> Last time I raised this, Chris said "has anyone looked yet?"
>
> To which the answer (my friend) is blowing in the
> wind^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H... is AFAIK no.
>
> However in
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2001-q4/msg00060.html
>
> Gary offered to look if the headache of changing is not too big.
>
> Gary, can I ask you to put setup aside for a little bit (It's now
> feature frozen bar my install-all feature) and review the daemon?
You can, and I will, but I think I should address this security issue with mutt
first and reroll it. Hopefully I can get that done yet tonight, but you know
how things go....
> Cygwin1.dll is nice and stable just now, so this would be an ideal time
> to add in the core of the daemon (the daemon itself, and Egors' security
> fix, but not IPC).
>
> I've merged CVS so it's up to date, it looks ok - I've done a test
> build.
>
> Remember, if you want to test the IPC, newlib needs a patch as well.
What exactly would you like me and others to test/evaluate? From your post
previous to the above:
"Also the code is in two distinct chunks:
1) A daemon to run under NT and 9x and provide cross-process services to
cygwin.
2) A security fix which Egor created the original daemon to accomplish
when passing tty handles around, and an IPC- SHM only just now -
implementation using the daemon, which has been used by me to push the
daemon limits..."
Now without IPC, are we talking about process-related things that already exist
but are implemented without a third process managing them, e.g. mmap, fork, etc?
--
Gary R. Van Sickle
Brewer. Patriot.
- Raw text -