linux-kernel - Re: PATCH? fix unshare(NEWPID) && vfork()

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: <20130819175124.GA23167@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 Aug 2013 19:51:24 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Colin Walters <walters@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH? fix unshare(NEWPID) && vfork()

On 08/19, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> So I think your patch is correct, although I'm not sure why you move
> the test.

I didn't really, we have 2 tests, in do_fork() and copy_process().
I think it would be better to do the similar checks in one place.

This is off-topic and needs a separate change anyway, but perhaps
we should add the new helper which checks clone_flags. copy_process()
is huge.

> The new test you have look complicated as hell, so I think
> you're actually making things worse by making them unreadable.

Oh I agree. I'll wait for the comments on intent, then try to
cleanup it somehow. Unless a better fix comes.

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/