linux-kernel - CLONE_PARENT after setns(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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20131106180232.GA8980@ac100>
Date:	Wed, 6 Nov 2013 12:02:32 -0600
From:	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Christian Seiler <christian@...kd.de>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Lxc development list <lxc-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: CLONE_PARENT after setns(CLONE_NEWPID)

Hi Oleg,

commit 40a0d32d1eaffe6aac7324ca92604b6b3977eb0e :
"fork: unify and tighten up CLONE_NEWUSER/CLONE_NEWPID checks"
breaks lxc-attach in 3.12.  That code forks a child which does
setns() and then does a clone(CLONE_PARENT).  That way the
grandchild can be in the right namespaces (which the child was
not) and be a child of the original task, which is the monitor.

lxc-attach in 3.11 was working fine with no side effects that I
could see.  Is there a real danger in allowing CLONE_PARENT
when current->nsproxy->pidns_for_children is not our pidns,
or was this done out of an "over-abundance of caution"?  Can we
safely revert that new extra check?

thanks,
-serge
--
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/