From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754202Ab1AJXXl (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:23:41 -0500
Received: from wavehammer.waldi.eu.org ([82.139.201.20]:51307 "EHLO
	wavehammer.waldi.eu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751011Ab1AJXXj (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:23:39 -0500
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:23:35 +0100
From: Bastian Blank <bastian@waldi.eu.org>
To: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        LSM <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Kees Cook <kees.cook@canonical.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] allow killing tasks in your own or child userns
Message-ID: <20110110232335.GA27029@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Bastian Blank <bastian@waldi.eu.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
	containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	LSM <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Kees Cook <kees.cook@canonical.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
References: <20110110211135.GA22446@mail.hallyn.com>
 <20110110211334.GD22564@mail.hallyn.com>
 <20110110215240.GA21351@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org>
 <20110110225151.GA18944@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110110225151.GA18944@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 04:51:51PM -0600, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Bastian Blank (bastian@waldi.eu.org):
> > Isn't that equal to this?
> > 
> > 	if (ns_capable(tcred->user->user_ns, CAP_KILL))
> > 		return 1;
> > 
> > 	if (cred->user->user_ns == tcred->user->user_ns &&
> > 	    (cred->euid == tcred->suid ||
> > 	     cred->euid == tcred->uid ||
> > 	     cred->uid == tcred->suid ||
> > 	     cred->uid == tcred->uid))
> > 		return 1;
> > 
> > 	return 0;
> > 
> > I would consider this much easier to read.
> 
> Unfortunately, it's actually not equivalent.  when capable()
> returns success, then it sets the current->flags |= PF_SUPERPRIV.
> If permission is granted based on userids and the capability
> isn't needed, then we don't want to needlessly set PF_SUPERPRIV.

Well, then switch the two if-clauses.

What is this flag used for anyway? I only see it used in the accounting
stuff, and if every user can get it, it is not longer useful.

Bastian

-- 
Bones: "The man's DEAD, Jim!"