[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080228213507.GD1232@vino.hallyn.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:35:07 -0600
From: serge@...lyn.com
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: serge@...lyn.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morgan <morgan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: [PATCH 1/1] file capabilities: simplify signal check
Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@...ssion.com):
> serge@...lyn.com writes:
>
> > Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@...ssion.com):
> >> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> >>
> >> > um, is that code namespace-clean?
> >>
> >> Choke, gag.
> >
> > Oh, sorry, I got lost in the set of patches in the message. To be
> > clear, my little 4-patch uid-ns-signal patchset can simply be updated
> > to make the cap_task_kill() uid check into if (task_user_equiv(current, p)
> >
> > But Eric if you simply drop cap_task_kill() (don't make it return 0,
> > just drop the function and go back to not setting task_kill in the
> > capability_security_ops) I'll ack that. Else I'll write the patch
> > thursday. At this point the only thing that will be denied by
> > cap_task_kill() but not by check_kill_permission() is funky euid cases.
> > That's wrong. (cc'ing amorgan in the event I'm forgetting something
> > useful the fn is doing)
>
> Go ahead. I'm fighting a cold and am fairly overloaded at the moment.
>
> Eric
Thanks - patch sent a little while ago. The description explains why
I believe cap_task_kill() became worthless (not just 'it's inconvenient' :)
-serge
--
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