Backwards?

Robert Collins robert.collins@syncretize.net
Wed Jul 3 07:30:00 GMT 2002


You're right. I think that is :}.

Uhmm, I think I had it deliberatly wrong whilst I got the cygserver security
access calls working just right.

Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Conrad Scott" <Conrad.Scott@dsl.pipex.com>
To: <cygwin-patches@cygwin.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 12:25 AM
Subject: Backwards?


> 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
>
>



More information about the Cygwin-patches mailing list