[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F86D702.30209@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:22:10 +0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] proc: use task_access_lock() instead of ptrace_may_access()
On 04/11/2012 01:59 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> There are several places in fs/proc/base.c still use ptrace_may_access()
> directly to check the permission, actually this just gets a snapshot of
> the permission, nothing prevents the target task from raising the priviledges
> itself, it is better to use task_access_lock() for these places, to hold
> the priviledges.
>
Hi, Andrew,
Please drop this patch, it introduces a deadlock when execve() a
/proc/<pid>/exec file, and it is not a big improvement nor fixes any
bugs, so let's just drop this one.
Thanks!
--
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