lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH 6/9] oom: unify CAP_SYS_RAWIO check into other superuser check
Date

Now, CAP_SYS_RAWIO check is very strange. if the user have both
CAP_SYS_ADMIN and CAP_SYS_RAWIO, points will makes 1/16.

Superuser's 1/4 bonus worthness is quite a bit dubious, but
considerable. However 1/16 is obviously insane.

Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
mm/oom_kill.c | 17 ++++++-----------
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index b27db90..7f91151 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -199,19 +199,14 @@ unsigned long badness(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long uptime)

/*
* Superuser processes are usually more important, so we make it
- * less likely that we kill those.
+ * less likely that we kill those. And we don't want to kill a
+ * process with direct hardware access. Not only could that mess
+ * up the hardware, but usually users tend to only have this
+ * flag set on applications they think of as important.
*/
if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ||
- has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
- points /= 4;
-
- /*
- * We don't want to kill a process with direct hardware access.
- * Not only could that mess up the hardware, but usually users
- * tend to only have this flag set on applications they think
- * of as important.
- */
- if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_RAWIO))
+ has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) ||
+ has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_RAWIO))
points /= 4;

/*
--
1.6.5.2




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-17 03:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site