[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090225224751.GA2062@hallyn.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:47:51 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Chris Evans <scarybeasts@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Don Howard <dhoward@...hat.com>,
Eugene Teo <eugene@...hat.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
Tavis Ormandy <taviso@....lonestar.org>,
Vitaly Mayatskikh <vmayatsk@...hat.com>, stable@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] exit_notify: kill the wrong capable(CAP_KILL) check
Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@...hat.com):
> On 02/25, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@...hat.com):
> > > On 02/25, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > Can't understand... Why do you think CAP_KILL makes things better?
> > >
> > > Actually, how can it make any difference in this case?
> >
> > Well the check by itself isn't quite right - it seems to me it
> > should also check whether tsk->euid == parent->uid. But letting
> > an unprivileged task send SIGSTOP to a privileged one bc of
> > some fluke in the task hierarchy doesn't seem right.
>
> I think you misread this CAP_KILL check.
>
> It does not restrict the unprivileged task to send the signal. Instead,
> if the exiting task has CAP_KILL, we bypass other security checks.
? If the exiting task does not have CAP_KILL, we set the signal to
SIGCHILD (which is deemed safe).
Or, I'm completely misreading...
-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