Re: [PATCH] Return EPERM not ECHILD on security_task_wait failure

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Roland McGrath wrote: > As I said in some earlier discussion following my original patch, that > would be fine with me. I haven't coded up that variant, but it's simple > enough. Would you like to do it? Sure. -- James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from

Re: [PATCH] Return EPERM not ECHILD on security_task_wait failure

> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > This patch makes do_wait return -EPERM instead of -ECHILD if some > > children were ruled out solely because security_task_wait failed. > > What about using the return value from the security_task_wait hook (which > should be -EACCES) ? As I

Re: [PATCH] Return EPERM not ECHILD on security_task_wait failure

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Roland McGrath wrote: > This patch makes do_wait return -EPERM instead of -ECHILD if some > children were ruled out solely because security_task_wait failed. What about using the return value from the security_task_wait hook (which should be -EACCES) ? - James -- James

Re: [PATCH] Return EPERM not ECHILD on security_task_wait failure

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Roland McGrath wrote: This patch makes do_wait return -EPERM instead of -ECHILD if some children were ruled out solely because security_task_wait failed. What about using the return value from the security_task_wait hook (which should be -EACCES) ? - James -- James

Re: [PATCH] Return EPERM not ECHILD on security_task_wait failure

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Roland McGrath wrote: This patch makes do_wait return -EPERM instead of -ECHILD if some children were ruled out solely because security_task_wait failed. What about using the return value from the security_task_wait hook (which should be -EACCES) ? As I said in

Re: [PATCH] Return EPERM not ECHILD on security_task_wait failure

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Roland McGrath wrote: As I said in some earlier discussion following my original patch, that would be fine with me. I haven't coded up that variant, but it's simple enough. Would you like to do it? Sure. -- James Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this

[PATCH] Return EPERM not ECHILD on security_task_wait failure

wait* syscalls return -ECHILD even when an individual PID of a live child was requested explicitly, when security_task_wait denies the operation. This means that something like a broken SELinux policy can produce an unexpected failure that looks just like a bug with wait or ptrace or something.

[PATCH] Return EPERM not ECHILD on security_task_wait failure

wait* syscalls return -ECHILD even when an individual PID of a live child was requested explicitly, when security_task_wait denies the operation. This means that something like a broken SELinux policy can produce an unexpected failure that looks just like a bug with wait or ptrace or something.