Re: [PATCH v2] oom: allow a non-CAP_SYS_RESOURCE proces to oom_score_adjdown

[David Rientjes]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:

> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> index f3d02ca..e617413 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -1164,7 +1164,7 @@ static ssize_t oom_score_adj_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
>  		goto err_task_lock;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (oom_score_adj < task->signal->oom_score_adj &&
> +	if (oom_score_adj < task->signal->oom_score_adj_min &&
>  			!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) {
>  		err = -EACCES;
>  		goto err_sighand;
> @@ -1177,6 +1177,8 @@ static ssize_t oom_score_adj_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
>  			atomic_dec(&task->mm->oom_disable_count);
>  	}
>  	task->signal->oom_score_adj = oom_score_adj;
> +	if (capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
> +		task->signal->oom_score_adj_min = oom_score_adj;
>  	/*
>  	 * Scale /proc/pid/oom_adj appropriately ensuring that OOM_DISABLE is
>  	 * always attainable.

This should be has_capability_noaudit(current, CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) instead, 
we don't want an audit message to be emitted when checking if 
oom_score_adj_min should be set.

Other than that:

Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/