Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH -v1 2/3] vm: use new has_capability_noaudit | From | Eric Paris <> | Date | Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:57:07 -0400 |
| |
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
| |