linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] fork: unify and tighten up CLONE_NEWUSER/CLONE

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:42:07 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
	Colin Walters <walters@...hat.com>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] fork: unify and tighten up CLONE_NEWUSER/CLONE_NEWPID checks

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 08/22, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > On 08/22, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes. Before this patch do_fork() did:
>> >> >
>> >> >         if (clone_flags & (CLONE_NEWUSER | CLONE_NEWPID)) {
>> >> >                 if (clone_flags & (CLONE_THREAD|CLONE_PARENT))
>> >> >                         return -EINVAL;
>> >> >         }
>> >> >
>> >> > however, let me repeat, CLONE_PARENT after unshare(CLONE_NEWPID) was
>> >> > allowed. With this patch CLONE_PARENT is nacked in both cases.
>> >>
>> >> Is this -stable-worthy?
>> >
>> > Honestly, I do not know. I do not want to abuse -stable, and I will
>> > sleep better if this patch won't go into the stable trees ;)
>> >
>> > OTOH, I think that at least 1/3 is probably -stable material... Since
>> > I am going to send v2, I would not mind to add stable@...r.kernel.org
>> > if both you and Eric agree.
>>
>> This may allow creation of a process with tgid and pid in different
>> pid namespaces.  If so, I have no idea what the consequences would be.
>
> and share the parent with the creator.
>
> Not good. But probably not too bad, one can abuse ->pidns_install()
> anyway, create a child in another ns, exit. Like it or not but pid_ns
> is "special" and you even sent the patch to reflect this sad^W fact.
>
> Anyway. The main point of this patch is the consistency (plus imho it
> cleanups/simplifies the code). Both CLONE_NEWPID and
> "task_active_pid_ns() != pid_ns" create a task in another namespace,
> we should use the same restrictions.
>
> And you seem to agree with this change, can I take it as your ack ?
> I am going to preserve your acks in 1-2 and resend.
>

Yes.  These patches probably want Eric's ack, too, though -- it's his code.

--Andy
--
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/