linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 5 7/7] KEYS: exec request key within service thread of key creator

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:	Tue, 07 Apr 2015 08:54:30 +0800
From:	Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <onestero@...hat.com>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@...hat.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@...marydata.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5 7/7] KEYS: exec request key within service thread
 of key creator

On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 13:58 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> wrote:
> 
> > +
> > +	/* Namespace token */
> > +	int umh_token;
> 
> If you could put it after data_len so that all the smaller-than-wordsize
> fields are together for better packing.

OK.

> 
> > +		umh_wq_put_token(key->umh_token);
> 
> Does gc.c need an extra #include for this?

Umm ... you'd think so, wonder how it compiled without kmod.h ....

> 
> > +	/* If running within a container use the container namespace */
> > +	if (current->nsproxy->net_ns != &init_net)
> > +		key->umh_token = umh_wq_get_token(0, "keys");
> 
> So keys live in the networking namespace?

Perhaps checking the pid namespace would make more sense?

> 
> > -	ret = call_usermodehelper_keys(argv[0], argv, envp, keyring,
> > -				       UMH_WAIT_PROC);
> > +	/* If running within a container use the container namespace */
> > +	if (key->umh_token)
> > +		ret = call_usermodehelper_keys_service(argv[0], argv, envp,
> > +						       keyring, key->umh_token,
> > +						       UMH_WAIT_PROC);
> > +	else
> > +		ret = call_usermodehelper_keys(argv[0], argv, envp,
> > +					       keyring, UMH_WAIT_PROC);
> 
> call_usermodehelper_keys_service() would appear to be superfluous.  If
> key->umh_token is 0, you call call_usermodehelper_keys() which then calls
> call_usermodehelper_keys_service() with a 0 token...

Yeah, not really worth the additional function. IIRC there are no other
callers of call_usermodehelper_keys().

> 
> David


--
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/