Ar Maw, 2006-08-08 am 13:11 -0400, ysgrifennodd Stephen Smalley:
> Does this look sane? Or do we need a common helper factored from
> disassociate_ctty()? Why is the locking different for TIOCNOTTY in the
> non-leader case?
The non-leader case for TIOCNOTTY in the base kernel is different
because it is wrong and I've fixed that one.
If you can factor disassociate_ctty out to do what you need I'd prefer
that path so the tty locking actually ends up in the tty layer.
> + mutex_lock(&tty_mutex);
> + tty = current->signal->tty;
> if (tty) {
> file_list_lock();
Looks sane and the lock ordering matches vhangup() which may actually
also do what you want - I'm not 100% sure I follow what SELinux tries to
do here.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
