linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/10] Make bsd process accounting work in pid namespaces

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, 15 May 2008 19:43:04 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10] Make bsd process accounting work in pid namespaces

On Thu, 15 May 2008 14:52:46 +0400 Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org> wrote:

> fter I fixed access to task->tgid in kernel/acct.c, Oleg 
> pointed out some bad side effects with this accounting vs pid 
> namespaces interaction. I.e. when some task in pid namespace 
> sets this accounting up, this blocks all the others from doing 
> the same. Restricting this to init namespace only could help, 
> but didn't look as a grace solution.
> 
> So here is the approach to make this accounting work with pid
> namespaces properly.

We still have this silliness in acct_file_reopen():

		spin_unlock(&acct_lock);
		do_acct_process(acct, old_ns, old_acct);
		filp_close(old_acct, NULL);
		spin_lock(&acct_lock);

Was this lock-dropping safe before?

Is it safe now?

To work this out, we'd need to know what acct_lock protects.  What does
acct_lock protect?
--
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/