From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763853AbZD3WxU (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:53:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752054AbZD3WxK (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:53:10 -0400 Received: from tundra.namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:35814 "EHLO tundra.namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750909AbZD3WxJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:53:09 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 08:51:50 +1000 (EST) From: James Morris To: Oleg Nesterov cc: Andrew Morton , Roland McGrath , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , Eric Paris , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH] do_wait: do take security_task_wait() into account In-Reply-To: <20090429160123.GA4591@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20090428223025.GA11997@redhat.com> <20090428233305.GA14221@redhat.com> <20090429160123.GA4591@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LRH 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > I was never able to understand what should we actually do when > security_task_wait() fails, but the current code doesn't look right. > > If ->task_wait() returns the error, we update *notask_error correctly. > But then we either reap the child (despite the fact this was forbidden) > or clear *notask_error (and hide the securiy policy problems). > > This patch assumes that "stolen by ptrace" doesn't matter. If selinux > denies the child we should ignore it but make sure we report -EACCESS > instead of -ECHLD if there are no other eligible children. > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov Applied to: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/security-testing-2.6#next -- James Morris