From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1762804AbZBYWou@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1762804AbZBYWou (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:44:50 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760188AbZBYWoj
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:44:39 -0500
Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:43005 "EHLO
	hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1761511AbZBYWoi (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:44:38 -0500
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:47:51 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
       Chris Evans <scarybeasts@gmail.com>,
       David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Don Howard <dhoward@redhat.com>,
       Eugene Teo <eugene@redhat.com>,
       Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@googlemail.com>,
       Tavis Ormandy <taviso@sdf.lonestar.org>,
       Vitaly Mayatskikh <vmayatsk@redhat.com>, stable@kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] exit_notify: kill the wrong capable(CAP_KILL) check
Message-ID: <20090225224751.GA2062@hallyn.com>
References: <20090225190218.GA7453@redhat.com> <20090225194140.D6F6EFC3DA@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20090225215356.GA1442@hallyn.com> <20090225220324.GA14667@redhat.com> <20090225221415.GA1751@hallyn.com> <20090225223234.GA16156@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090225223234.GA16156@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@redhat.com):
> On 02/25, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Oleg Nesterov (oleg@redhat.com):
> > > On 02/25, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > Can't understand... Why do you think CAP_KILL makes things better?
> > >
> > > Actually, how can it make any difference in this case?
> >
> > Well the check by itself isn't quite right - it seems to me it
> > should also check whether tsk->euid == parent->uid.  But letting
> > an unprivileged task send SIGSTOP to a privileged one bc of
> > some fluke in the task hierarchy doesn't seem right.
> 
> I think you misread this CAP_KILL check.
> 
> It does not restrict the unprivileged task to send the signal. Instead,
> if the exiting task has CAP_KILL, we bypass other security checks.

?  If the exiting task does not have CAP_KILL, we set the signal to
SIGCHILD (which is deemed safe).

Or, I'm completely misreading...

-serge