[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m13apkvmsa.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:44:05 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ipc: sysvsem: implement sys_unshare(CLONE_SYSVSEM)
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com> writes:
> (patches 1 and 2 were originally by Manfred Spraul)
>
> sys_unshare(CLONE_NEWIPC) doesn't handle the undo lists properly, this can
> cause a kernel memory corruption. CLONE_NEWIPC must detach from the existing
> undo lists.
>
> Fix, part 1: add support for sys_unshare(CLONE_SYSVSEM)
>
> The original reason to not support it was the potential (inevitable?)
> confusion due to the fact that sys_unshare(CLONE_SYSVSEM) has the
> inverse meaning of clone(CLONE_SYSVSEM).
>
> Our two most reasonable options then appear to be (1) fully support
> CLONE_SYSVSEM, or (2) continue to refuse explicit CLONE_SYSVSEM,
> but always do it anyway on unshare(CLONE_SYSVSEM). This patch does
> (1).
>
> Changelog:
> Apr 16: SEH: switch to Manfred's alternative patch which
> removes the unshare_semundo() function which
> always refused CLONE_SYSVSEM.
>
> Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
> Signed-off-by: Serge E. Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>
These patches look like the fix the core issue.
Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Eric
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists