[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1335692945.7442.7.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 11:49:05 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Louis Rilling <louis.rilling@...labs.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] namespaces: fix leak on fork() failure
On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 00:57 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Mike's proposed change to switch_task_namespace is most definitely not
> correct. This will potentially get called on unshare and so we don't
> limit ourselves to just an exit pid_namespace. The result is that we
> could free the proc mount long before it is safe.
!new && !(p->flags & PF_EXITING) should prevent that..
> At the same time the leak that Mike detected is most definitely real.
>
> > Perhaps it would be more clean to add the explicit
> >
> > bad_fork_cleanup_namespaces:
> > + if (unlikely(clone_flags & CLONE_NEWPID))
> > + pid_ns_release_proc(...);
> > exit_task_namespaces(p);
> >
> >
> > code into this error path in copy_process?
>
> For now Oleg your minimal patch looks good.
..but yeah, that looks much nicer.
> Part of me would like to call proc_flush_task instead of
> pid_ns_release_proc but we have no assurance task_pid and task_tgid are
> valid when we get here so proc_flush_task is out.
I only discovered pid_ns_release_proc() exists after didn't work :)
-Mike
--
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