Re: root permissions for user processes?

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Steve Baker (sbaker++at++link.com)
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 12:43:50 -0600 (CST)

On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Jean Daigle wrote:

> Setting the suid-bit does work for us.
  
Yep - me too.

> The following steps are performed (with Performer 1.2, 2.0.x, 2.1):
> su -
> chown root.sys <visual binary>
> chmod 4555 <visual binary>
>
> This _does_ allow non-degrading priorities to be set, and processors
> to be isolated, restricted, etc. It hasn't been necessary to set
> the "t" bit.
>
> There are some side effects if you are reading data from NFS-mounted
> filesystems where the root privileges may not commute, but the
> performance enhancements work.

Also, while debugging, if the program crashes, you won't get a core
dump unless you are actually logged in as root at the time.

Steve Baker 817-619-8776 (Vox/Vox-Mail)
Raytheon Systems Inc. 817-619-4028 (Fax)
2200 Arlington Downs Road SBaker++at++link.com (eMail)
Arlington, Texas. TX 76005-6171 SJBaker1++at++airmail.net (Personal eMail)
http://www.hti.com http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1 (personal)

** Beware of Geeks bearing GIF's. **

=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://www.sgi.com/Technology/Performer/
            Submissions: info-performer++at++sgi.com
        Admin. requests: info-performer-request++at++sgi.com

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:56:49 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.