On Sad, 2005-11-12 at 00:08 +0100, Claudio Scordino wrote:
> On Saturday 12 November 2005 00:23, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Gwe, 2005-11-11 at 23:38 +0100, Claudio Scordino wrote:
> > > + if ((current->euid != tsk->euid) &&
> > > + (current->euid != tsk->uid)) {
> > > + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> >
> > Would be -EPERM also wants a 'privilege' check. Not sure which would be
> > best here - CAP_SYS_ADMIN seems to be the 'default' used
>
> I would say -EPERM. Any other comment about the patch ?
Looks fine to me otherwise. Allowing if CAP_SYS_ADMIN is set fixes the
case where root wants to see anything, rest looks clean and sensible
--
Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel.
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/
FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
