Message197808
| Author |
barry |
| Recipients |
barry, bruno.Piguet, giampaolo.rodola, r.david.murray |
| Date |
2013年09月15日.18:44:00 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<20130915144353.511490b3@anarchist> |
| In-reply-to |
<1379268303.47.0.458516318277.issue14984@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
On Sep 15, 2013, at 06:05 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
>For the security fix, the check should only be done if the file is the the
>default .netrc. (Which would also make your error message
>correct...otherwise it is not :) Also, it would make more sense for the 'prop
>=' to be inside the 'if posix'.
>
>Barry, with that detail fixed should I apply this to 2.6? (I'll tweak the
>error messages a bit, too.)
For the error message, I suggest including both os.getuid and prop.st_uid,
e.g. something like:
".netrc file is owned by (%d); should be (%d)" % (prop.st_uid, os.getuid())
NetrcParseError seems a little odd but I suppose I could justify incorrect
ownership or mode as a parse error. We definitely don't want to introduce a
new exception for 2.6.9, so the only other option is an OSError I think.
RDM, can you write any tests for this issue? Also, are any documentation
changes necessary? I think this should be a candidate for 2.6.9. |
|