[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090429160123.GA4591@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:01:23 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: [PATCH] do_wait: do take security_task_wait() into account
I was never able to understand what should we actually do when
security_task_wait() fails, but the current code doesn't look right.
If ->task_wait() returns the error, we update *notask_error correctly.
But then we either reap the child (despite the fact this was forbidden)
or clear *notask_error (and hide the securiy policy problems).
This patch assumes that "stolen by ptrace" doesn't matter. If selinux
denies the child we should ignore it but make sure we report -EACCESS
instead of -ECHLD if there are no other eligible children.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
--- PTRACE/kernel/exit.c~WAIT_SECURITY 2009-04-29 12:46:15.000000000 +0200
+++ PTRACE/kernel/exit.c 2009-04-29 16:19:40.000000000 +0200
@@ -1476,6 +1476,7 @@ static int wait_consider_task(struct tas
*/
if (*notask_error)
*notask_error = ret;
+ return 0;
}
if (likely(!ptrace) && unlikely(task_ptrace(p))) {
--
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