linux-kernel - Re: Q: selinux_bprm_committed_creds() && signals/do

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

Date:	Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:33:05 +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: Re: Q: selinux_bprm_committed_creds() && signals/do_wait

I am totally confused and almost sleeping, so another question ;)

What if eligible_child()->security_task_wait() returns the error?

wait_consider_task:

	if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {
		/*
		 * If we have not yet seen any eligible child,
		 * then let this error code replace -ECHILD.
		 * A permission error will give the user a clue
		 * to look for security policy problems, rather
		 * than for mysterious wait bugs.
		 */
		if (*notask_error)
			*notask_error = ret;
	}

But shouldn't we return 0 in this case ?

The current code proceeds and either reaps the child or clears notask_error.

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/