public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morgan <morgan@kernel.org>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Linux Containers <containers@lists.osdl.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	minslinux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH -mm] oom_kill: remove uid==0 checks
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:06:17 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <47606969.6060808@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071212211835.GA24943@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Andrew, I've cc:d you here bc in doing this patch I noticed that your
> 64-bit capabilities patch switched this code from an explicit check
> of cap_t(p->cap_effective) to using __capable().  That means that
> now being glossed over by the oom killer means PF_SUPERPRIV will
> be set.  Is that intentional?

Yes, I switched the check because the old one didn't work with the new
capability representation.

However, I had not thought this aspect of this replacement through. At
the time, it seemed obvious but in this case it actually depends on
whether you think using privilege (PF_SUPERPRIV) means "benefited from
privilege", or "successfully completed a privileged operation".

I suspect, in this case, the correct thing to do is add the equivalent of:

#define CAPABLE_PROBE_ONLY(a,b)   (!security_capable(a,b))

and use that in the code in question. That is, return to the old
behavior in a way that will not break if we ever need to add more bits.

Thanks for finding this.

Cheers

Andrew

> 
> Signed-off-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>
> ---
>  mm/oom_kill.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 016127e..9fd8d5d 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ unsigned long badness(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long uptime,
>  	 * Superuser processes are usually more important, so we make it
>  	 * less likely that we kill those.
>  	 */
> -	if (__capable(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN) || p->uid == 0 || p->euid == 0)
> +	if (__capable(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN) || __capable(p, CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
>  		points /= 4;
>  
>  	/*

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHYGln+bHCR3gb8jsRAgNwAKDQED4YNy479LKfDL1fhVGWMK22eACgjPMh
JcFgzPsvIQkoatjvJ1vtHQ8=
=50l1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  reply	other threads:[~2007-12-12 23:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-12-12 21:18 [RFC] [PATCH -mm] oom_kill: remove uid==0 checks Serge E. Hallyn
2007-12-12 23:06 ` Andrew Morgan [this message]
2007-12-21  0:34   ` Andrew Morton
2007-12-21 14:46     ` Serge E. Hallyn

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=47606969.6060808@kernel.org \
    --to=morgan@kernel.org \
    --cc=containers@lists.osdl.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=minslinux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox