Basic File Privileges [PSARC/2009/378 FastTrack timeout 7/10/2009]

[Casper.Dik at sun.com]

>Right; SMF manifests is one area that I was thinking where this could
>have been a problem.  Another is applications that might be doing this
>kind of thing:
>
>1. application starts with all kinds of privileges including basic
>2. application needs to fork a child that only needs to read and write
>to files it owns
>3. application calls fork, and then in the child calls setppriv() with
>the empty set assuming that it needs no privileges to read and write
>files that it owns
>
>I think these (if they exist) will break.  I know I have one of these in
>my project gate that I'll have to fix. ;-)

Yeah, I guess you didn't follow the guidelines but if they are not
spelled out then we need to fix the documentation.

Perhaps it's hidden too well, but there are such bits as:

     To  maintain  future  compatibility,  the  "basic"  set   of
     privileges  is included as "basic,!missing_basic_priv1,...".
     When further currently unprivileged  operations  migrate  to
     the  basic  privilege set, the conversion back of the result
     with  priv_str_to_set()  includes   the   additional   basic
     privileges,  guaranteeing  that  the resulting privilege set
     carries the same privileges. This behavior  is  the  default
     and   is   equivalent  to  specifying  a  flag  argument  of
     PRIV_STR_PORT. 


Casper