[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0903021332130.3111@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:33:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Chris Evans <scarybeasts@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Don Howard <dhoward@...hat.com>,
Eugene Teo <eugene@...hat.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
Tavis Ormandy <taviso@....lonestar.org>,
Vitaly Mayatskikh <vmayatsk@...hat.com>, stable@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] copy_process: fix CLONE_PARENT && parent_exec_id
interaction
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> I am re-sending this patch simplified to one-liner. If this patch is
> accepted, I think it makes sense to move the first
> "p->parent_exec_id = p->self_exec_id" in copy_process() down, under
> the "else" branch. Just for readability.
>
> Note! This patch doesn't even try to address the original CVE. Let me
> repeat, I am not the security expert, please correct me. But, unless
> parent or child change security context (via exec), it is OK to send
> any ->exit_signal when the child exits.
>
> Comments?
I think this looks correct and sane. And I agree with your "also move down
the "p->parent_exec_id = p->self_exec_id" thing. In fact, I'd agree with
it so much that I think it should be part of this patch, just because that
not only clarifies the code, but it also makes it more obvious what the
real change of this one single _patch_ is.
No?
Linus
--
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