[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5AFEA8FF-BDEA-40AF-8C45-19F3E9CC36D3@zytor.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 20:35:29 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: ebiederm@...ssion.com, Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.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 December 19, 2015 8:11:50 PM PST, ebiederm@...ssion.com wrote:
>ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
>
>>>> 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)?
>>
>> I do not believe a fixed association with the first mount is an
>> acceptable solution for implementing /dev/ptmx in association with
>> a change to cause mount of devpts to be an independent filesystem.
>> Such an association fails to be backwards compatible with existing
>> userspace, and it is extremely fragile.
>
>Ugh. After reviewing the userspace code that mounts devpts we have
>to do use a magic /dev/ptmx to solve the issue we are trying to solve.
>
>The fragility of detecting the primary system devpts seems solvable.
>
>CentOS5 and openwrt-15.05 mount devpts, unmount devpts,
>then mount devpts again. So a rule of mouting the internal devpts if
>it
>isn't mounted would work for those.
>
>CentOS6 uses switch_root and moves it's early mount of devpts onto the
>primary root, and then because devpts is also in /etc/fstab tries and
>fails to mount devpts once more at the same location. Implying
>newinstance will make that mounting devpts twice. That sounds solvable
>but I don't see a clean way of detecting that case yet.
>
>Ugh.
>
>I am going to pound my head up against what is needed to find the
>primary system mount of devpts for a bit more and see if I can solve
>that. Otherwise this exercise is pointless.
>
>Eric
Does it matter if it mounts devpts twice? It seems like a waste of a minuscule amount of memory, and nothing else.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse brevity and formatting.
--
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