Re: Fw: [PATCH 1/1] file capabilities: simplify signal check

2008-02-25 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 02/24, Harald Welte wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 09:09:31PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > I just have an almost off-topic (sorry ;) question. Do we really need > > kill_pid_info_as_uid() ? Harald Welte cc'ed. > > > > From "[PATCH] Fix signal sending in usbdevio on async URB completion"

Re: Fw: [PATCH 1/1] file capabilities: simplify signal check

2008-02-24 Thread Harald Welte
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 09:09:31PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > I just have an almost off-topic (sorry ;) question. Do we really need > kill_pid_info_as_uid() ? Harald Welte cc'ed. > > From "[PATCH] Fix signal sending in usbdevio on async URB completion" > commit 46113830a18847cff8da73005e57bc49c

Re: Fw: [PATCH 1/1] file capabilities: simplify signal check

2008-02-24 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 02/23, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > um, is that code namespace-clean? > > Choke, gag. > > There are uid namespace issues but since no one has finished the > uid namespace that I am aware of that is minor. > > However the code does not appear cl

Re: Fw: [PATCH 1/1] file capabilities: simplify signal check

2008-02-23 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > um, is that code namespace-clean? Choke, gag. There are uid namespace issues but since no one has finished the uid namespace that I am aware of that is minor. However the code does not appear clean/maintainable. The normal linux signal sending policy