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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 16:35:41 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com> Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>, Ricky Zhou <rickyz@...omium.org>, Julien Tinnes <jln@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] user_ns: use correct check for single-threadedness On 08/05, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > So I have to ask. I hope you are asking someone else, not me ;) I never understood what exactly we try to restrict and why. > Is it possible to rework these checks such that we > look at the sighand struct and signal sharing handling sharing instead > of the count on the mm_struct? Then why we can't simply check thread_group_empty() == T ? Why should we worry about CLONE_SIGHAND at all? 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