[#8136] Confused exception handling in Continuation Context — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...>

Hi all

13 messages 2006/07/06

[#8248] One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — "Curt Hibbs" <ml.chibbs@...>

I just posted this to ruby-talk. But I would also like to discuss this

33 messages 2006/07/18
[#8264] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — Charlie Savage <cfis@...> 2006/07/19

From my experience using both tool chains on Windows (for the ruby-prof

[#8266] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — "Curt Hibbs" <ml.chibbs@...> 2006/07/19

Tim, I'm going to top reply since your post was so long. I'm interested in

[#8267] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — Charlie Savage <cfis@...> 2006/07/19

> Tim, I'm going to top reply since your post was so long. I'm interested in

[#8271] my sandboxing extension!! — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>

I have (what feels like) very exciting news. I finally sat down to code up my

17 messages 2006/07/19

[#8430] Re: doc patch: weakref. — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>

> -----Original Message-----

19 messages 2006/07/28
[#8434] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/07/29

Hi,

[#8436] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2006/07/29

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#8437] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...> 2006/07/29

On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 07:37:24PM +0900, Daniel Berger wrote:

[#8441] Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...>

I have the following code:

18 messages 2006/07/30
[#8442] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — nobu@... 2006/07/30

Hi,

[#8443] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...> 2006/07/30

Why does this:

[#8445] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/07/30

Hi,

[#8454] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...> 2006/07/31

So to clarify...

Re: Patch for Unix socket peer credentials

From: Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
Date: 2006-07-13 20:44:55 UTC
List: ruby-core #8214
On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:04 PM, James F. Hranicky wrote:

> On Tuesday 11 July 2006 00:10, Tanaka Akira wrote:
>> In article <200607101352.16804.jfh@cise.ufl.edu>,
>>
>> I think it's good enough.
>
> Ok. I changed it to a struct, and made it a method of BasicSock:
>
>    ruby -rsocket -e 'p UNIXServer.new 
> (ARGV.shift).accept.peer_cred' /tmp/sock
>    #<struct Struct::SockCred uid=987, gid=10426, ruid=987, rgid=10426,
>    euid=987, egid=10426>
>
> Here's the patch. The method should throw an error if any of the  
> system calls fail or if (uid < 0 || gid < 0).

Are you sure this is right?

FreeBSD has:

typedef __int64_t       __id_t;         /* can hold a gid_t, pid_t,  
or uid_t */

And a google search for 'negative uid' reveals that such things exist  
in the wild.

-- 
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant

http://trackmap.robotcoop.com



In This Thread