lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Q: selinux_bprm_committed_creds() && signals/do_wait
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> selinux_bprm_committed_creds:
>
> rc = avc_has_perm()
> if (rc) {
> flush_signals(current);
>
> This doesn't look right. If the task was SIGKILL'ed we must not proceed,
> the task should die. The fix is simple, we should check SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT
> and do nothing in this case, the task will exit before return to user
> space. If SIGNAL_GROUP_EXIT is set, it is just wrong to drop SIGKILL and
> continue.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. This is a permission check to see
if the new task can inherit the signal state of the parent, and if not,
the new task's signal state is flushed.

Where does a consideration of SIGKILL arise?

> But, before fixing, I'd like to understand why we are doing
>
> flush_signal_handlers(current, 1);
> sigemptyset(&current->blocked);
>
> later. Could someone explain ? This looks unneeded.

This is part of clearing all the signal state in the child.

>
>
> Another question,
>
> wake_up_interruptible(&current->parent->signal->wait_chldexit);
>
> Shouldn't we use ->real_parent ? Afaics, we shouldn't worry about the tracer
> if current is ptraced, exec must not succeed if the tracer has no rights to
> trace this task after cred changing. But we should notify ->real_parent which
> is, well, real parent.
>
> Also, we don't need _irq to take tasklist_lock, and we don't actually need
> ->siglock.
>
> Oleg.
>

--
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-29 02:31    [W:1.798 / U:1.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site