@@ -774,28 +774,40 @@ static void __do_notify(struct mqueue_in
* synchronously. */
if (info->notify_owner &&
info->attr.mq_curmsgs == 1) {
- struct kernel_siginfo sig_i;
switch (info->notify.sigev_notify) {
case SIGEV_NONE:
break;
- case SIGEV_SIGNAL:
- /* sends signal */
+ case SIGEV_SIGNAL: {
+ struct kernel_siginfo sig_i;
+ struct task_struct *task;
+
+ /* do_mq_notify() accepts sigev_signo == 0, why?? */
+ if (!info->notify.sigev_signo)
+ break;
clear_siginfo(&sig_i);
sig_i.si_signo = info->notify.sigev_signo;
sig_i.si_errno = 0;
sig_i.si_code = SI_MESGQ;
sig_i.si_value = info->notify.sigev_value;
- /* map current pid/uid into info->owner's namespaces */
rcu_read_lock();
+ /* map current pid/uid into info->owner's namespaces */
sig_i.si_pid = task_tgid_nr_ns(current,
ns_of_pid(info->notify_owner));
- sig_i.si_uid = from_kuid_munged(info->notify_user_ns, current_uid());
+ sig_i.si_uid = from_kuid_munged(info->notify_user_ns,
+ current_uid());
+ /*
+ * We can't use kill_pid_info(), this signal should
+ * bypass check_kill_permission(). It is from kernel
+ * but si_fromuser() can't know this.
+ */
+ task = pid_task(info->notify_owner, PIDTYPE_PID);
+ if (task)
+ do_send_sig_info(info->notify.sigev_signo,
+ &sig_i, task, PIDTYPE_TGID);
rcu_read_unlock();
-
- kill_pid_info(info->notify.sigev_signo,
- &sig_i, info->notify_owner);
break;
+ }
case SIGEV_THREAD:
set_cookie(info->notify_cookie, NOTIFY_WOKENUP);
netlink_sendskb(info->notify_sock, info->notify_cookie);