[#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: 2006-07-18 19:52:27 UTC
List: ruby-core #8258
On Jul 18, 2006, at 12:27 PM, James F. Hranicky wrote:

> Attached is the latest patch. Changes from the original:
>
> 	- UNIXSocket::{uid,gid} are replaced with UNIXSocket::peer_cred
> 	  that returns a hash of credentials { :uid => uid, ... }.
> 	  peer_cred[:uid] and peer_cred[:gid] are defined to be
> 	  ruid || euid || -1 and rgid || egid || -1 respectively.
> 	  -1 for :uid or :gid will raise an error.
>
> 	- UNIXSocket::peer_cred is now a method of BasicSocket, meaning
> 	  other sockets can make use of the routine if possible (apparently,
> 	  local TCP sockets on Sol10 pass credentials like Unix sockets do).
> 	  Depending on what the syscalls return for sockets that don't
> 	  support credentials, a system error will be raised if the syscall
> 	  fails, otherwise an error should be raised if uid or gid is still
> 	  -1.

> +    if (uid < 0 || gid < 0)
> +        rb_raise(rb_eSocket, "Invalid credentials: uid %d, gid % 
> d", uid, gid);

Negative UID and GID are valid on some operating systems.

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

http://trackmap.robotcoop.com



In This Thread