Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:46:06 -0600 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] [PATCH -mm] oom_kill: remove uid==0 checks |
| |
Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org): > On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:06:17 -0800 > Andrew Morgan <morgan@kernel.org> wrote: > > > Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > Andrew, I've cc:d you here bc in doing this patch I noticed that your > > > 64-bit capabilities patch switched this code from an explicit check > > > of cap_t(p->cap_effective) to using __capable(). That means that > > > now being glossed over by the oom killer means PF_SUPERPRIV will > > > be set. Is that intentional? > > > > Yes, I switched the check because the old one didn't work with the new > > capability representation. > > > > However, I had not thought this aspect of this replacement through. At > > the time, it seemed obvious but in this case it actually depends on > > whether you think using privilege (PF_SUPERPRIV) means "benefited from > > privilege", or "successfully completed a privileged operation". > > > > I suspect, in this case, the correct thing to do is add the equivalent of: > > > > #define CAPABLE_PROBE_ONLY(a,b) (!security_capable(a,b)) > > > > and use that in the code in question. That is, return to the old > > behavior in a way that will not break if we ever need to add more bits.
Oh, I'm sorry - Andrew Morgan, I somehow read that email to say you were going to post such a patch, and let it fall off my todo list. Should I go ahead and post a patch or do you have one ready?
> I'm struggling to understand whether the above was an ack, a nack or a > quack. > > > Thanks for finding this. > > >From that I'll assume ack ;)
It actually wasn't an ack of my patch. But I'm not sure where to look for that.
thanks, -serge
| |