[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090429133015.GA30505@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:30:15 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: selinux_bprm_committed_creds() && signals/do_wait
On 04/29, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 00:30 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That makes sense to me - yes, s/parent/real_parent/.
Great, thanks. Will send the patch soon.
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