Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:22314
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
To: andi@zend.com (Andi Gutmans)
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:42:48 +0100
Message-ID: <7dd112p5kh1gj0lt13dlh6uita42llsir4@4ax.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060218170026.02a224f8@zend.com>
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060218170026.02a224f8@zend.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: Nuking safe_mode
From: penguin@php.net (Peter Brodersen)

Hi,

Just got home from a month in South America and is trying to catch up
on old posts...

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:02:32 -0800, in php.internals andi@zend.com
(Andi Gutmans) wrote:

>I'm nuking safe_mode and I found something odd. In streams,=20
>php_plain_files_unlink() only checks php_check_open_basedir() when=20
>ENFORCE_SAFE_MODE is flagged. I was planning on nuking=20
>ENFORCE_SAFE_MODE completely. Is this a bug? Or should I rename=20
>ENFORCE_SAFE_MODE  to ENFORCE_OPEN_BASEDIR?

Rasmus mentions in <43874C56.8050007@lerdorf.com> /
http://news.php.net/php.internals/20417 that it might be a good idea
unwrapping the safe_mode_exec_dir check from the uid matching.

The trouble about "safe mode" seems mainly to be the expression (based
on the notes in
http://www.php.net/~derick/meeting-notes.html#safe-mode ) and the
spurious UID checks.

In the same old thread it didn't seem like there was a consensus or
best practice regarding the exec functions. Some recommended using
disabled_functions, but this would just be asking people to "remake"
and maintain their own list of functions that safe_mode (under any
other name) would have disabled for them.

Would the feature of safe_mode_exec_dir in any kind of name be
preserved, as recommended by Rasmus? This might be the exact time to
"remind us later".

--=20
- Peter Brodersen