lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH -v1 2/3] vm: use new has_capability_noaudit
    From
    Date
    On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 15:15 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
    > On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 15:06 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
    > > The oomkiller calculations make decisions based on capabilities. Since
    > > these are not security decisions and LSMs should not record if they fall
    > > the request they should use the new has_capability_noaudit() interface so
    > > the denials will not be recorded.
    > >
    > > Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
    > > ---
    > >
    > > fs/proc/base.c | 2 +-
    > > mm/oom_kill.c | 6 +++---
    > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
    > >
    > > diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
    > > index 486cf3f..ef83e81 100644
    > > --- a/fs/proc/base.c
    > > +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
    > > @@ -1020,7 +1020,7 @@ static ssize_t oom_adjust_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
    > > task = get_proc_task(file->f_path.dentry->d_inode);
    > > if (!task)
    > > return -ESRCH;
    > > - if (oom_adjust < task->oomkilladj && !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) {
    > > + if (oom_adjust < task->oomkilladj && !has_capability_noaudit(current, CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) {
    >
    > This one looks like an actual permission check to see whether the
    > current task is authorized to modify this value (by writing to some proc
    > node). Which should be audited. Unlike the others, where they are
    > checking whether some other task has a capability in order to help
    > decide priorities for the OOM killer.

    Will be fixed in -v2



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-29 20:59    [W:0.021 / U:1.744 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site