On 07/18/2012 02:25 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Chris Adams writes:
> Once upon a time, Sam Varshavchik <mrsam(a)courier-mta.com> said:
>> Chris Adams writes:
>>> Is there any value in this "additional check" (that nobody else
>>> apparently does)? Do you not trust the kernel's credential handling?
>>
>> I certainly trust it. But just because I trust it, it doesn't mean that any
>> additional checks have no value.
>
> Sure it does. If the credentials are always correct, additional checks
> past that are a waste of cycles.
You feel absolutely confident that just because you can't think of any value
of additional checks, there cannot possibly be any.
You're wrong.
> I ask again: do you have a legitimate
> use case? Is there _any_ case that other checks can succeed that this
> invented test of yours would catch?
I already explained what they are.
Not exactly. You said:
Can you explain, then, the "correctly" approach by which
an
executable can affirm whether another pid is either running the same
executable, or the post-prelinked version of the same
executable. Anyone who suggests readlinking /proc/self/exe, then
the other /proc/pid/exe, and comparing them sans any hardcoded "
(deleted)" suffix is going to get only howls of laughter, in
response.
But that's not a use case. There's no way to know why you want to do
this: why you care that another process is running the exact same
executable.
Andrew.