[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87siy4z1pf.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 10:55:40 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Colin Walters <walters@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH? fix unshare(NEWPID) && vfork()
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
> 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().
The patch below also needs CLONE_SIGHAND. You can't meaningfully share
signal handlers if you can't represent the pid in the siginfo. pids and
signals are too interconnected.
Eric
> 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