Re: [PATCH] apparmor: remove the "task" arg from may_change_ptraced_domain()

2013-12-20 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 12/19, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > On 13/12/18, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > Otherwise I can't understand your email, at least right now... I do not > > know how/where audit uses parent/real_parent. > > It uses real_parent to include the ppid number of a process in a couple > of log records. I

Re: [PATCH] apparmor: remove the "task" arg from may_change_ptraced_domain()

2013-12-19 Thread John Johansen
On 12/19/2013 08:36 PM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > On 13/12/18, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >> On 12/18, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: >>> >>> Bcc: r...@redhat.com >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] apparmor: remove the "task" arg from >>> may_change_ptraced_

Re: [PATCH] apparmor: remove the "task" arg from may_change_ptraced_domain()

2013-12-19 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
On 13/12/18, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 12/18, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > > Bcc: r...@redhat.com > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] apparmor: remove the "task" arg from > > may_change_ptraced_domain() > > Reply-To: > > In-Reply-To: <20130926132519.gy1

Re: [PATCH] apparmor: remove the "task" arg from may_change_ptraced_domain()

2013-12-18 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 12/18, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > Bcc: r...@redhat.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH] apparmor: remove the "task" arg from > may_change_ptraced_domain() > Reply-To: > In-Reply-To: <20130926132519.gy13...@madcap2.tricolour.ca> The subject is empty ;) I changed it

Re: [PATCH] apparmor: remove the "task" arg from may_change_ptraced_domain()

2013-09-26 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 06:44:42PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 09/23, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:20:35PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > Unless task == current ptrace_parent(task) is not safe even under > > > rcu_read_lock() and most of the current users are

Re: [PATCH] apparmor: remove the "task" arg from may_change_ptraced_domain()

2013-09-24 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 09/23, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:20:35PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Unless task == current ptrace_parent(task) is not safe even under > > rcu_read_lock() and most of the current users are not right. > > Could you point to an explanation of this? If this task

Re: [PATCH] apparmor: remove the "task" arg from may_change_ptraced_domain()

2013-09-23 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:20:35PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Unless task == current ptrace_parent(task) is not safe even under > rcu_read_lock() and most of the current users are not right. Could you point to an explanation of this? > So may_change_ptraced_domain(task) looks wrong as well. Ho

Re: [PATCH] apparmor: remove the "task" arg from may_change_ptraced_domain()

2013-09-16 Thread John Johansen
On 09/16/2013 07:20 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Unless task == current ptrace_parent(task) is not safe even under > rcu_read_lock() and most of the current users are not right. > > So may_change_ptraced_domain(task) looks wrong as well. However it > is always called with task == current so the code

Re: [PATCH] apparmor: remove the "task" arg from may_change_ptraced_domain()

2013-09-16 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 09/16, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Unless task == current ptrace_parent(task) is not safe even under > rcu_read_lock() and most of the current users are not right. In particular selinux is buggy. But this needs another simple patch, will do tomorrow. > So may_change_ptraced_domain(task) looks wro