linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree

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:   Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:59:23 +1300
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree

Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> writes:

> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
>
>   fs/proc/base.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   68eb94f16227 ("proc: Better ownership of files for non-dumpable tasks in user namespaces")
>
> from the userns tree and commit:
>
>   d15d29b5352f ("procfs: change the owner of non-dumpable and writeable files")
>
> from the akpm-current tree.
>
> I *think* that the former supercedes the latter?

Sort of.  After a long conversation it turns out what they are trying to
do is orthogonal.

The first (mine) is handling the case of non-dumpable tasks in user
namespaces.

The second by Aleksa Sarai is trying to trying to relax the permission
checks in proc so that non-dumpable is not as strict, to sort out some
runC issues where they are having challenges coding themselves into a
corner.  In the case of /proc/self I think there may be a case but in
general relaxing the permission checks in proc gives me the Heebie
Jeebies.

Andrew do you see merit in Aleksa's patch that I don't?  Otherwise can
you remove it from your tree?

> I fixed it up (I just used the former) and can carry the fix as
> necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
> non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
> cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
> particularly complex conflicts.

Stephen thank you for pointing this out.

Eric