From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 13:42:40 +0300 From: "Dmitry V. Levin" To: Arseny Maslennikov Message-ID: <20200918104240.GA29951@altlinux.org> References: <9bca7626b593f896de4283cba2d6290ec99eb4f2.1576183643.git.legion@altlinux.org> <20200917131156.GH286846@cello> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200917131156.GH286846@cello> Cc: devel@lists.altlinux.org, Alex Gladkov Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH hasher-priv v1 1/3] config.c X-BeenThere: devel@lists.altlinux.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Id: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 10:42:40 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 04:11:56PM +0300, Arseny Maslennikov wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 12:42:03PM +0100, Alex Gladkov wrote: [...] > > +static void > > +check_server_control_group(void) > > Bad (IOW, unlucky) naming; especially since in a later patch > hasher-privd deals with cgroups. It's the group that limits access to the server, so it's the access group. > Is this related to the socket inode's gid in /run? Yes, but the inode of the listening socket doesn't necessarily have to belong to this group if the access limit is implemented using directory permissions. -- ldv