[BusyBox] Improving Our Development Process

[Vladimir N. Oleynik]

Matt Kraai wrote:

> I realize this.  Otherwise dropping priviledges would be
> pointless.  What tinylogin does, and what I believe is safe, is to
> drop priviledges if the applet does not need them (such as
> logname) and not to drop them for programs which do need to run as
> root (su, passwd, etc.).  Once they are dropped with a setuid
> call, there is no way to get them back.  I don't see what the
> problem with this is.

Can be. But very strange: inverse logic. 
And usage addition code for start all applications.

> > 2) Current `root' (Not busybox) itself should solve, and whether in
> > general it is necessary to have setuid `mount' (for example).
> 
> Although it would be nice for the root user to be able to change
> the setuid status of different applets via chmod, it isn't worth
> the space to me to have a unique tiny binary for each applet.

Also it turns out, that your method to use is impossible generally. 
As if there will be a desire to make one module at hardlinks it is
impossible to apply chmod only on one/"many" binaries.

On what only shifts do not go people if only to not accept 
another's idea. ;)


--w
vodz