On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 15:15 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 15:06 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> > The oomkiller calculations make decisions based on capabilities. Since
> > these are not security decisions and LSMs should not record if they fall
> > the request they should use the new has_capability_noaudit() interface so
> > the denials will not be recorded.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > fs/proc/base.c | 2 +-
> > mm/oom_kill.c | 6 +++---
> > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> > index 486cf3f..ef83e81 100644
> > --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> > +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> > @@ -1020,7 +1020,7 @@ static ssize_t oom_adjust_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
> > task = get_proc_task(file->f_path.dentry->d_inode);
> > if (!task)
> > return -ESRCH;
> > - if (oom_adjust < task->oomkilladj && !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) {
> > + if (oom_adjust < task->oomkilladj && !has_capability_noaudit(current, CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) {
>
> This one looks like an actual permission check to see whether the
> current task is authorized to modify this value (by writing to some proc
> node). Which should be audited. Unlike the others, where they are
> checking whether some other task has a capability in order to help
> decide priorities for the OOM killer.
Will be fixed in -v2
--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
