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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 28 Dec 2012 19:21:52 +0000
From:	Al Viro <>
To:	Vasily Kulikov <>
	Containers <>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <>,,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] user_ns: fix missing limiting of user_ns counts

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:04:35PM +0400, Vasily Kulikov wrote:

> > I'm sorry, but this is not a solution.  Kernel is not x86-only; there are
> > architectures with far bigger minimal stack frame size.  E.g. on sparc64
> > every fucking stack frame is at least 176 bytes.  So your 100 calls deep
> > call chain will happily overflow the damn stack all by itself - kernel
> > stack on sparc64 is 16Kb total, including struct thread_info living there.
> Understood.  How to properly fix it then?  Looks like there are quite
> many kernel structures which may reference other structures which
> indirectly reference each other via kref, IOW it is not user_ns specific
> issue.  With unprivileged user_ns the way it should be freed must be
> somehow changed.

	There are many damn good reasons why kref should *not* be used without
thinking.  It's been oversold as easy solution to all refcounting problems;
it isn't one.  Don't use it here.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists