[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150814175944.GA16652@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:59:44 +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 1/2] unshare: Unsharing a thread does not require
unsharing a vm
On 08/13, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 08/13, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > In the sense of document when these tests apply I think it makes a
> > teensy bit of sense to have the CLONE_VM there. But if you want to send
> > me a cosmetic patch that removes that I will add it to my tree, with the
> > other two patches.
>
> Will do ;)
Yes, I still think it is pointless to check sighand->count if CLONE_VM.
> Eric, I need to run away, I'll try to answer other parts of our confusing
> discussion tomorrow.
No, lest stop it.
Yes, I was wrong, we can't avoid sighand->count check. Somehow I absolutely
forgot that we also need to ensure that unshare(SIGHAND) can't wrongly _fail_.
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