Re: [PATCH 2/3] Implement mountee startup.

[olafBuddenhagen]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 08:53:46PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 09:05:16PM +0100, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:28:37AM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:

> > > +  /* Fetch the effective UIDs of the unionfs process.  */
> > > +  nuids = geteuids (0, 0);
> > > +  if (nuids < 0)
> > > +    return EPERM;
> > > +  uids = alloca (nuids * sizeof (uid_t));
> > > +
> > > +  nuids = geteuids (nuids, uids);
> > > +  assert (nuids > 0);
> > 
> > Hrmph, I didn't spot this before: I don't think the assert() is right --
> > "nuids" (or "ngids") being exactly 0, is probably a perfectly valid
> > case... And even if it is not, the test in the assert should be
> > equivalent to the EPERM test above, to avoid confusion.
> 
> OK, changed.

For the record: We agreed on IRC that rather than changing the assert,
it's better to go back to the original code, i.e. do the check/EPERM
thing again. It is actually possible that the number of UIDs changes in
the middle of things...

(Yes Frederik, I agree that this is not ideal either :-) But fixing this
properly is non-trivial, and out of scope here... Might be useful to
file a bug on Savannah though so it won't get lost.)

I'll just assume that the rest of the patch is also fine now, rather
than looking through the whole thing again... I looked at it many times
already; and even though it seems I'm spotting new things to nitpick
about each time I look, I have neither time nor patience right now to do
it yet another time. Also, I'm too afraid of actually discovering more
stuff to nitpick about ;-)

In other words: please push this to the main unionmount branch :-)

-antrik-