Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits

Alan Cox <[email protected]> writes:

> Ar Sul, 2006-08-20 am 10:52 +0300, ysgrifennodd Kari Hurtta:
> > Perhaps stupid suggestion:
> > 
> > Should there be new signal for 'failure to drop privileges' ?
> > ( perhaps SIGPRIV or is this name free )
> > 
> > By default signal terminates process.  
> 
> Programs are allowed (and now and then do) intentionally let a setuid
> fail. A custom selinux or audit rule might be appropriate but that kind
> of hackery is not.

Commented code/patch used SIGKILL.  By allocating new signal programs
_are_ allowed intentionally let a setuid fail.

/ Kari Hurtta

-
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits
    • From: Solar Designer <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits
    • From: Kari Hurtta <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] introduce CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF_AOUT
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] file: kill unnecessary timer in fdtable_defer
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]