This is the mail archive of the libc-help@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc 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]

Re: setuid and setgid are async-signal-safe?

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>
To: libc-help at sourceware dot org
Cc: jiji vinitha <jiji dot vinitha at gmail dot com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 02:59:07 -0400
Subject: Re: setuid and setgid are async-signal-safe?
References: <CADRbbMUqEVLuV1Ap8UeX6Apt-P1ExDFt30CuWTvgOh9DeGxJuA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tuesday 30 October 2012 01:59:13 jiji vinitha wrote:
> I have referred  the setgid/setuid implementation in glibc-2.15 .
>  However,I could not understand the algorithm is truly async-signal safe or
> not. Is glibc-2.15's setgid/setuid implementation async-signal safe?

all it does is make a syscall to the kernel.  why do you think it isn't safe ?
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: setuid and setgid are async-signal-safe?
  - From: Siddhesh Poyarekar

References:
- setuid and setgid are async-signal-safe?
  - From: jiji vinitha

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]