linux-kernel - [PATCH 2/2] kill_something

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20061216200602.GA5538@tv-sign.ru>
Date:	Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:06:02 +0300
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk-lkml@....net>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] kill_something_info: really ignore -EPERM

kill(-1, sig) returns 0 if it has found some processes but there
is no one for which we have permission to send the signal.

Doesn't it make more sense to return -ESRCH in this case?

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>

--- eric-mm1/kernel/signal.c~2_perm	2006-12-16 22:17:52.000000000 +0300
+++ eric-mm1/kernel/signal.c	2006-12-16 22:22:48.000000000 +0300
@@ -1326,20 +1326,16 @@ static int kill_something_info(int sig, 
 		ret = kill_pid_info(sig, info, find_pid(pid));
 	} else if (pid == -1) {
 		struct task_struct *p;
-		int found = 0;
 
-		ret = 0;
+		ret = -ESRCH;
 		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 		for_each_process(p)
 			if (!is_init(p) && p != current->group_leader) {
 				int err = group_send_sig_info(sig, info, p);
 				if (err != -EPERM)
 					ret = err;
-				found = 1;
 			}
 		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
-		if (!found)
-			ret = -ESRCH;
 	} else {
 		struct pid *grp = task_pgrp(current);
 		if (pid != 0)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/