+4
−2
Loading
Gitlab 现已全面支持 git over ssh 与 git over https。通过 HTTPS 访问请配置带有 read_repository / write_repository 权限的 Personal access token。通过 SSH 端口访问请使用 22 端口或 13389 端口。如果使用CAS注册了账户但不知道密码,可以自行至设置中更改;如有其他问题,请发邮件至 service@cra.moe 寻求协助。
On sethostname() and setdomainname(), previous information may be retained if it was longer than than the new hostname/domainname. This can be demonstrated trivially by calling sethostname() first with a long name, then with a short name, and then calling uname() to retrieve the full buffer that contains the hostname (and possibly parts of the old hostname), one just has to look past the terminating zero. I don't know if we should really care that much (hence the RFC); the only scenarios I can possibly think of is administrator putting something sensitive in the hostname (or domain name) by accident, and changing it back will not undo the mistake entirely, though it's not like we can recover gracefully from "rm -rf /" either... The other scenario is namespaces (CLONE_NEWUTS) where some information may be unintentionally "inherited" from the previous namespace (a program wants to hide the original name and does clone + sethostname, but some information is still left). I think the patch may be defended on grounds of the principle of least surprise. But I am not adamant :-) (I guess the question now is whether userspace should be able to write embedded NULs into the buffer or not...) At least the observation has been made and the patch has been presented. Signed-off-by:Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by:
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by:
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
CRA Git | Maintained and supported by SUSTech CRA and CCSE