Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: Changes to the filesystem while find is running - comments? |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:15:33 +0000 |
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 08:51:38AM +0100, Casper.Dik@Sun.COM wrote:
I can see that that would be useful but it would fail to comply with the POSIX standard, which specifies: The find utility shall be able to descend to arbitrary depths in a file hierarchy and shall not fail due to path length limitations (unless a path operand specified by the application exceeds {PATH_MAX} requirements)But PATH_MAX is limited and the number of file descriptors is perhaps not.
Systems differ. Some have no limits on the depth of a directory hierarchy. Certainly I've created directory hierarchies of over 800,000 levels on HP-UX 9 and on Linux. GNU Hurd has no limits at all (and therefore used not to #define PATH_MAX at all).
(On Solaris, PATH_MAX is 1024 so you require at most 512 file descriptors to keep the stack of directories: 512 is less than the default hard limit of 65536 file descriptors per process [S9, S8 and before used 1024, still >> 512)
A worthwhile point, but since the POSIX standard doesn't mention fd limits here I suspect that there may be an expectation in some quarters that find will still be able to work even if the soft limit is much lower. That being said, consistently using fchdir() is a robust and sensible approach. However, I'm trying to correctly solve the problem of secure downward movement in the directory hierarchy, which as far as I can see is not fully solved simply by using fchdir(). Regards, James.
| Previous by Date: | STG Security Advisory: [SSA-20041122-12] Zwiki XSS vulnerability, advisory |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | XSS in Brazilian Insite products, Carlos Ulver |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Changes to the filesystem while find is running - comments?, Casper . Dik |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Changes to the filesystem while find is running - comments?, Paul Szabo |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |