[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090429102511.GA10767@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:25:11 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: selinux_bprm_committed_creds() && signals/do_wait
On 04/29, David Howells wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > we can flush the signal which was sent after we changed SID/cred and passed
> > the new permission checks,
>
> I think you mean to say, rather, that we can *lose* a signal that was sent,
> because flush_signals() discards all pending signals unconditionally, and so
> SIGKILL can be lost?
Yes, thanks.
> I suspect we should pass SIGKILL
Or we can fliter out SIGKILLs, yes.
But this doesn't differ from "do nothing if SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT", except needs
a bit more changes. If SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT is true, we must have a pending
SIGKILL. Either way the task never returns to user-space.
> and possibly SIGSTOP through the flush.
Yes, perhaps... But I don't know if this is right from the selinux pov.
Perhaps it was queued before we changed SID.
And. It is possible that the task/user who sent SIGSTOP before changing
SID will not able to send SIGCONT later.
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