|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > linux-kernel archives|
> ----- "Hugh Dickins" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, David Howells wrote:
> > > Hugh Dickins <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > We do. See the original thread. It's here at
> > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/2/26/233
> > > > and appended below for convenience. We do know that patch did
> > not
> > > > fix Joe's problem, and we don't yet know whether addressing the
> > > > files->count issue will actually fix it, but I'm hopeful.
> > >
> > > Looks reasonable.
> > Thanks for taking a look.
> > Yes, I'm inclined to go with that, and removing the files->count
> > check from exec.c. Joe, did you manage to try your testing with
> > my original patch plus that files->count check removed from 2.6.28's
> > unsafe_exec()?
> Sorry for not responding earlier.
> I still got one failure with this new patch. I added some printks
> to illuminate exactly why it's failing when it fails to setuid, but
> of course, since adding the printks I haven't reproduced yet.
My tests were accidentally run without removing the files->count check.
The printks confirmed the failure case was the files->count check, and removing the files->check has worked thus far (though I can't be sure until after a day or two has gone by given how infrequent it is).
Joe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html