[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:34:42 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andrew Morgan <morgan@...nel.org>
Cc: serue@...ibm.com, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, minslinux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH -mm] oom_kill: remove uid==0 checks
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:06:17 -0800
Andrew Morgan <morgan@...nel.org> wrote:
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Andrew, I've cc:d you here bc in doing this patch I noticed that your
> > 64-bit capabilities patch switched this code from an explicit check
> > of cap_t(p->cap_effective) to using __capable(). That means that
> > now being glossed over by the oom killer means PF_SUPERPRIV will
> > be set. Is that intentional?
>
> Yes, I switched the check because the old one didn't work with the new
> capability representation.
>
> However, I had not thought this aspect of this replacement through. At
> the time, it seemed obvious but in this case it actually depends on
> whether you think using privilege (PF_SUPERPRIV) means "benefited from
> privilege", or "successfully completed a privileged operation".
>
> I suspect, in this case, the correct thing to do is add the equivalent of:
>
> #define CAPABLE_PROBE_ONLY(a,b) (!security_capable(a,b))
>
> and use that in the code in question. That is, return to the old
> behavior in a way that will not break if we ever need to add more bits.
I'm struggling to understand whether the above was an ack, a nack or a
quack.
> Thanks for finding this.
>From that I'll assume ack ;)
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists