* Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Here's a totally untested patch. It's guaranteed not to do the "right > thing", simply because it doesn't _use_ the uid/euid information. But it's > in the right kind of direction. > > If you change the "kill_proc_info()" into a "kill_proc_info_as_uid()" > call, and add that to kernel/signal.c (which is basically kill_proc_info() > except it uses the passed-in uid/euid for the "check_kill_permission()" > tests instead), it should be correct. > > As-is, it won't work, because it will use a _random_ uid (whatever is the > currently running process) for the kill permission. So this really is just > a "use this as a template" kind of patch, DO NOT APPLY!
Sorry, I missed the thread up to this, but this looks fundamentally broken. The kill_proc_info_as_uid() idea is not sufficient because more than uid/euid are needed for permission check. There's capabilities and security labels. Is there a reason not to do normal async here? thanks, -chris ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
