linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] extend get/setrlimit to support setting rlimits external to a process (v7)

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 8 Nov 2009 19:10:03 -0500
From:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	marcin.slusarz@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	hpa@...or.com, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] extend get/setrlimit to support setting rlimits
	external to a process (v7)

On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 11:36:29AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 11/06/2009 10:26 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Jiri, i think your patches are incomplete for the same reasons i 
> > > outlined to Neil.
> > 
> > I'll examine that. Thanks for pointing out.
> > 
> > > Also, the locking there looks messy:
> > > 
> > > +       /* optimization: 'current' doesn't need locking, e.g. setrlimit */
> > > +       if (tsk != current) {
> > > +               /* protect tsk->signal and tsk->sighand from disappearing */
> > > +               read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > > +               if (!tsk->sighand) {
> > > +                       retval = -ESRCH;
> > > +                       goto out;
> > > +               }
> > >         }
> > > 
> > > Neil's splitup into a helper function looks _far_ cleaner.
> > 
> > Then, I think, we should join our efforts.
> 
> i think your commits could be enhanced to include Neil's splitup (and 
> keeping your write extension for /proc/*/limits), and the new syscall 
> (with a security check), hm?
> 
> Without dropping your current commits - they already have testing value.
> 
That seems like a reasonable approach to me.  Jiri, would you like to do that or
shall I?  I'm happy to but it will take me a few days (I've got a bug I need to
focus on first).

Regards
Neil

--
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/