Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756300AbZD2KDY (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:03:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753809AbZD2KDM (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:03:12 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:59227 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753410AbZD2KDL (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:03:11 -0400 Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20090429065809.GA477@redhat.com> References: <20090429065809.GA477@redhat.com> <20090428223025.GA11997@redhat.com> To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, James Morris , Eric Paris , Roland McGrath , Stephen Smalley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Q: selinux_bprm_committed_creds() && signals/do_wait Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:02:50 +0100 Message-ID: <7242.1240999370@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 648 Lines: 17 Oleg Nesterov wrote: > we can flush the signal which was sent after we changed SID/cred and passed > the new permission checks, I think you mean to say, rather, that we can *lose* a signal that was sent, because flush_signals() discards all pending signals unconditionally, and so SIGKILL can be lost? I suspect we should pass SIGKILL and possibly SIGSTOP through the flush. David -- 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/