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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans