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]