Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:34:42 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] [PATCH -mm] oom_kill: remove uid==0 checks |
| |
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:06:17 -0800 Andrew Morgan <morgan@kernel.org> wrote:
> 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.
I'm struggling to understand whether the above was an ack, a nack or a quack.
> Thanks for finding this.
From that I'll assume ack ;)
| |