[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090428223025.GA11997@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:30:25 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Q: selinux_bprm_committed_creds() && signals/do_wait
selinux_bprm_committed_creds:
rc = avc_has_perm()
if (rc) {
flush_signals(current);
This doesn't look right. If the task was SIGKILL'ed we must not proceed,
the task should die. The fix is simple, we should check SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT
and do nothing in this case, the task will exit before return to user
space. If SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT is set, it is just wrong to drop SIGKILL and
continue.
But, before fixing, I'd like to understand why we are doing
flush_signal_handlers(current, 1);
sigemptyset(¤t->blocked);
later. Could someone explain ? This looks unneeded.
Another question,
wake_up_interruptible(¤t->parent->signal->wait_chldexit);
Shouldn't we use ->real_parent ? Afaics, we shouldn't worry about the tracer
if current is ptraced, exec must not succeed if the tracer has no rights to
trace this task after cred changing. But we should notify ->real_parent which
is, well, real parent.
Also, we don't need _irq to take tasklist_lock, and we don't actually need
->siglock.
Oleg.
--
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