linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/1] Was: pidns: Support unsharing the pid namespace.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 15 Feb 2011 20:15:21 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>
Cc:	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xemul@...nvz.org, sukadev@...ibm.com,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/1] Was: pidns: Support unsharing the pid namespace.

On 02/15, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 02/15, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >
> > - Pass both nsproxy->pid_ns and task_active_pid_ns to copy_pid_ns
> >   As they can now be different.
>
> But since they can be different we have to convert some users of
> current->nsproxy first? But that patch was dropped.
>
> > Unsharing of the pid namespace unlike unsharing of other namespaces
> > does not take effect immediately.  Instead it affects the children
> > created with fork and clone.
>
> IOW, unshare(CLONE_NEWPID) implicitly affects the subsequent fork(),
> using the very subtle way.
>
> I have to admit, I can't say I like this very much. OK, if we need
> this, can't we just put something into, say, signal->flags so that
> copy_process can check and create the new namespace.
>
> Also. I remember, I already saw something like this and google found
> my questions. I didn't actually read the new version, perhaps my
> concerns were already answered...
>
> 	But what if the task T does unshare(CLONE_NEWPID) and then, say,
> 	pthread_create() ? Unless I missed something, the new thread won't
> 	be able to see T ?
>
> 	and, in this case the exiting sub-namespace init also kills its
> 	parent?
>
> 	OK, suppose it does fork() after unshare(), then another fork().
> 	In this case the second child lives in the same namespace with
> 	init created by the 1st fork, but it is not descendant ? This means
> 	in particular that if the new init exits, zap_pid_ns_processes()->
> 	do_wait() can't work.
>
> Or not?

And, can't resist. If we are going to change sys_unshare(), I'd like
very much to cleanup it first.

Dear all! I promise, I will resend this patch forever until somebody
explains me why it is constantly ignored ;)

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/