Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:13:56 +0200 | From | "Udo A. Steinberg" <> | Subject | Re: context switch vs. signal delivery [was: Re: Accelerating user mode |
| |
On Tue, 06 Aug 2002 06:20:52 -0500 Jeff Dike <jdike@karaya.com> wrote:
> us15@os.inf.tu-dresden.de said: > > if (current->pgrp != -arg && > > current->pid != arg && > > !capable(CAP_KILL)) return(-EPERM); > > What's the problem here? This will let UML do F_SETOWN as well.
It will let the incoming process take over ownership of the socket, which is probably what you mean and what you currently use.
I'm talking about a setup with the kernel residing in its own process. On iret it would have to change ownership of the socket to another task, i.e. process with kernel_pid wants to set task_pid as the owner of the socket. The above code fragment doesn't permit this, as far as I can see. What it does permit is the incoming task setting itself to the socket owner, but that requires that the incoming task always runs a trampoline first which accomplishes that.
-Udo. - 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/
| |