[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130820185043.GA24040@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:50:43 +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 08/20, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 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().
>
> I was confused.
Andy, I do not know how much you were confused, but I bet I am confused
much more ;)
> Currently (with or without your patch), vfork() followed by
> unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER) or unshare(CLONE_NEWPID) will unshare the VM.
Could you spell please?
We never unshare the VM. CLONE_VM in sys_unshare() paths just means
"fail unless ->mm is not shared".
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists