Scott James Remnant
scott at netsplit.com
Mon Oct 5 04:12:55 BST 2009
On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 20:46 +0100, Kees Jongenburger wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Scott James Remnant <scott at netsplit.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 15:39 +0200, Stef Bon wrote:
> >> Are you also planning to add this feature to upstart?? Or is it already
> >> possible to do this?? I cannot find an event name for "session added"
> >> and "session removed"...
> > Events can be sent from any other process via D-Bus or by using "initctl
> > emit"
> That brings me to the following question:
> Isn't there a security problem with the current emit model. I am
> thinking of the scenario where you want some process to send an event
> you can't really block it from sending a different event? I know most
> init script run as root anyway
> but just wonder what can be made possible specially if a end user
> needs to send events
Do you mean that you cannot restrict events to particular processes?
I wouldn't want to introduce a security model for such things without
having it first properly thought out, e.g. restricting to pids is
probably not sufficient since it prevents use of helper/worker processes
and suchforth (not to mention calling initctl)
But I'm not adverse to having a model.
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/upstart-devel/attachments/20091005/74add943/attachment.pgp
More information about the upstart-devel