linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/1] pidns: fix free_pid() to handle the first fork failure

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: <20130910140123.GA30152@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:01:23 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/1] pidns: fix free_pid() to handle the first fork failure

On 09/09, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
> >
> > Agreed, it also makes sense to clear ->nr_hashed. But I still think
> > that WARN_ON(ns->child_reaper) makes sense too.
>
> I don't know that I like warnings for impossible conditions.

But WARN_ON() should only check for "impossible" conditions ;)

> How could
> we even make a mistake that gets us there?

I do not know! I mean, this should not happen, that is why it adds
a warning.

And note that "ns->nr_hashed = 0" is not really needed, still I agree
it makes sense.

However I won't mind to remove this warning if you really dislike it.

> >> At which point I ask myself what of the pathlogocical case where the
> >> first fork fails but because we created the pid namespace with unshare
> >> there is a concurrent fork from another process into the pid namespace
> >> that succeeds.  Resulting in one pid in the pid namespace that is not
> >> the reaper.
> >
> > But how can setns() work before the first fork() succeeds and makes the
> > ->child_reaper visible in /proc ?
> >
> > Probably I missed something obvious, I didn't sleep today...
>
> Actually that is a very good point.  That is an accidental feature but
> one I very much appreciate today.

OK. Please review v2 then. I also shamelessly stole your comment.

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/