lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: fix must_not_trace_exec() test
Olaf Dietsche wrote:

> Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> writes:
>
>
> Although, I'd rather not lump together unrelated tests without
> renaming must_not_trace_exec(). Btw, can someone enlighten me what
> this atomic_read() test is all about.

Oops... your fix is obviously correct.

I assumed that the test was to check if the caller is a thread, but that sounds
odd -- wouldn't it stop being a thread after the exec anyway? Maybe that part
happens after compute_creds, so this prevents a race? Although I don't see how
it could be triggered if the thread never entered usermode before getting a new
fs/files/sighand.

Anyone?

>
> Regards, Olaf.
>
> diff -urN a/security/commoncap.c b/security/commoncap.c
> --- a/security/commoncap.c Mon Apr 12 10:38:17 2004
> +++ b/security/commoncap.c Mon Apr 12 11:10:38 2004
> @@ -118,9 +118,9 @@
> static inline int must_not_trace_exec (struct task_struct *p)
> {
> return ((p->ptrace & PT_PTRACED) && !(p->ptrace & PT_PTRACE_CAP))
> - || atomic_read(&current->fs->count) > 1
> - || atomic_read(&current->files->count) > 1
> - || atomic_read(&current->sighand->count) > 1;
> + || atomic_read(&p->fs->count) > 1
> + || atomic_read(&p->files->count) > 1
> + || atomic_read(&p->sighand->count) > 1;
> }
> [...]

--Andy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:1.059 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site