Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:45:33 +0200 | From | "Pekka Enberg" <> | Subject | Re: mprotect abuse in slim |
| |
On 1/10/07, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Now, what slim needs isn't "revoke all files for this inode", > but "revoke this task's write access to this fd". So two functions > which could be useful are > > int fd_revoke_write(struct task_struct *tsk, int fd) > int fd_revoke_write_iter(struct task_struct *tsk, > (int *)need_revoke(struct task_struct *tsk, int fd))
This gets interesting. We probably need revokefs (which we use internally as a substitute for revoke inodes) to be stacked on top of the actual fs so that you can still read from the fd. But most of the revocation is still the same, we need to watch out for fork(2) and dup(2) and take down shared mappings. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |