[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <566F1E9A.4090501@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:55:06 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@...el32.net>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
"security@...nel.org" <security@...nel.org>,
"security@...ntu.com >> security" <security@...ntu.com>,
security@...ian.org, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] devpts: Sensible /dev/ptmx & force newinstance
On 12/14/15 11:47, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 12/11/2015 11:40 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Forcing newinstance for every mount of the devpts filesystem actually
>> requires the association between /dev/ptmx and the currently mounted
>> instance of devpts at /dev/pts. Simply remembering the first mount of
>> the devpts filesystem and associating that with /dev/ptmx is not
>> enough. I am aware of at least one instance where an initramfs mounts
>> devpts before the main system instance of devpts is mounted.
>
> Can you point me to that usage please?
>
> I ask because there's a patch to move devpts init from module initcall
> up to fs initcall (neither devpts nor the pty driver is actually built
> as a module anyway), and I'd like to look at what the consequences
> might be for that userspace configuration.
>
>
>> In that system ptys simply did not work after boot when I tested
>> associating /dev/ptmx with the first mount of the devpts filesystem.
>
> Assuming userspace isn't broken by that patch, is a fixed association
> with first mount otherwise an acceptable solution for magic /dev/ptmx
> (where /dev/ptmx is not a symlink to /dev/pts/ptmx)?
>
The problem is containers, I would think, if they create a new /dev/ptmx
and then mount a separate devpts instance instead of doing a bind mount.
-hpa
--
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