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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:03:15 -0700 From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com> Cc: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>, Oren Laadan <orenl@...rato.com>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>, randy.dunlap@...cle.com, arnd@...db.de, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...tin.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Louis.Rilling@...labs.com, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...e.hu, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, roland@...hat.com, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org> Subject: Re: [RFC][v8][PATCH 0/10] Implement clone3() system call Eric W. Biederman [ebiederm@...ssion.com] wrote: | > clone3() seemed to be the leading contender from what I've read so far. | > Does anyone still object to clone3() after reading the whole thread? | | I object to what clone3() is. The name is not particularly interesting. | | The sanity checks for assigning pids are missing and there is a todo | about it. I am not comfortable with assigning pids to a new process | in a pid namespace with other processes user space processes executing | in it. Could you clarify ? How is the call to alloc_pidmap() from clone3() different from the call from clone() itself ? | | How we handle a clone extension depends critically on if we want to | create a processes for restart in user space or kernel space. | | Could some one give me or point me at a strong case for creating the | processes for restart in user space? There has been a lot of discussion on this with reference to the Checkpoint/Restart patchset. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/13/401 for instance. | | The pid assignment code is currently ugly. I asked that we just pass | in the min max pid pids that already exist into the core pid | assignment function and a constrained min/max that only admits a | single pid when we are allocating a struct pid for restart. That was | not done and now we have a weird abortion with unnecessary special cases. I did post a version of the patch attemptint to implement that. As pointed out in: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/17/445 we would need more checks in alloc_pidmap() to cover cases like min or max being invalid or min being greater than max or max being greater than pid_max etc. Those checks also made the code ugly (imo). Sukadev -- 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