[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130819184355.GA25362@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:43:55 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Colin Walters <walters@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH? fix unshare(NEWPID) && vfork()
On 08/19, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > So do you think this change is fine or not (ignoring the fact it needs
> > cleanups) ?
>
> I think that removing the CLONE_VM check is fine (although there are
> some other ones that should probably be removed as well), but I'm not
> sure if that check needs replacing with something else.
OK, thanks... but I still can't understand.
The patch I sent is equivalent to the new one below. I just tried to
unify it with another check in do_fork().
Oleg.
--- x/kernel/fork.c
+++ x/kernel/fork.c
@@ -1176,7 +1176,7 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(
* If the new process will be in a different pid namespace
* don't allow the creation of threads.
*/
- if ((clone_flags & (CLONE_VM|CLONE_NEWPID)) &&
+ if ((clone_flags & (CLONE_THREAD | CLONE_PARENT | CLONE_NEWPID)) &&
(task_active_pid_ns(current) != current->nsproxy->pid_ns))
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
--
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