linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1][2nd resend] sys_unshare: remove the dead CLONE

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]

Message-Id: <20101109201742.BCA1.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue,  9 Nov 2010 20:21:07 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	JANAK DESAI <janak@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1][2nd resend] sys_unshare: remove the dead CLONE_THREAD/SIGHAND/VM code

> Cleanup: kill the dead code which does nothing but complicates the code
> and confuses the reader.
> 
> sys_unshare(CLONE_THREAD/SIGHAND/VM) is not really implemented, and I doubt
> very much it will ever work. At least, nobody even tried since the original
> "unshare system call -v5: system call handler function" commit
> 99d1419d96d7df9cfa56bc977810be831bd5ef64 was applied more than 4 years ago.
> 
> And the code is not consistent. unshare_thread() always fails unconditionally,
> while unshare_sighand() and unshare_vm() pretend to work if there is nothing
> to unshare.
> 
> Remove unshare_thread(), unshare_sighand(), unshare_vm() helpers and related
> variables and add a simple CLONE_THREAD | CLONE_SIGHAND| CLONE_VM check into
> check_unshare_flags().
> 
> Also, move the "CLONE_NEWNS needs CLONE_FS" check from check_unshare_flags()
> to sys_unshare(). This looks more consistent and matches the similar
> do_sysvsem check in sys_unshare().
> 
> Note: with or without this patch "atomic_read(mm->mm_users) > 1" can give
> a false positive due to get_task_mm().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> Acked-by: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
> ---
> 
>  kernel/fork.c |  123 +++++++++++-----------------------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 98 deletions(-)
> 
> --- 2.6.37/kernel/fork.c~unshare-killcrap	2010-11-05 18:03:28.000000000 +0100
> +++ 2.6.37/kernel/fork.c	2010-11-05 18:09:52.000000000 +0100
> @@ -1522,38 +1522,24 @@ void __init proc_caches_init(void)
>  }
>  
>  /*
> - * Check constraints on flags passed to the unshare system call and
> - * force unsharing of additional process context as appropriate.
> + * Check constraints on flags passed to the unshare system call.
>   */
> -static void check_unshare_flags(unsigned long *flags_ptr)
> +static int check_unshare_flags(unsigned long unshare_flags)
>  {
> +	if (unshare_flags & ~(CLONE_THREAD|CLONE_FS|CLONE_NEWNS|CLONE_SIGHAND|
> +				CLONE_VM|CLONE_FILES|CLONE_SYSVSEM|
> +				CLONE_NEWUTS|CLONE_NEWIPC|CLONE_NEWNET))
> +		return -EINVAL;

Please put WARN_ON_ONCE() explicitly. That's good way to find hidden
user if exist and getting better bug report.

And, I've reveied this patch and I've found no fault. but I will not put
my ack because I think I haven't understand original intention perhaps.

Anyway, thanks Oleg.



--
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/