Re: SysV IPC Semaphores

From: Amon Ott <ao@rsbac.org>
Subject: Re: SysV IPC Semaphores
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:15:50 +0100

Next Article (by Subject): Re: SysV IPC Semaphores Jörgen Sigvardsson
Previous Article (by Subject): SysV IPC Semaphores Jörgen Sigvardsson
Top of Thread: SysV IPC Semaphores Jörgen Sigvardsson
Next in Thread: Re: SysV IPC Semaphores Jörgen Sigvardsson
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]

On Die, 05 Dez 2000 Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
> I just noticed that SysV Semaphores are not covered by RSBAC. I see a reason 
> that they should be. A rogue process may starve other processes (DoS). 
> 
> I can cook up a patch :) But I will not have time to actually do this until I 
> start with the actual implementation of my model (next year).

In fact, they had been intended at the very beginning - see IPC type 'sem'.
As I saw no access control implications and DoS is easy for any running
process, I never did the implementation. If you think it necessary, we can
easily add the interceptions in ipc/sem.c like in shm.c or msg.c.

Amon.
-
To unsubscribe from the rsbac list, send a mail to
majordomo@rsbac.org with
unsubscribe rsbac
as single line in the body.

Go to Compuniverse LWGate Home Page.