linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20170125174322.777ddcb0e232d5409569e95c@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2017 17:43:22 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the
 userns tree

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:59:23 +1300 ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:

> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> writes:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   fs/proc/base.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   68eb94f16227 ("proc: Better ownership of files for non-dumpable tasks in user namespaces")
> >
> > from the userns tree and commit:
> >
> >   d15d29b5352f ("procfs: change the owner of non-dumpable and writeable files")
> >
> > from the akpm-current tree.
> >
> > I *think* that the former supercedes the latter?
> 
> Sort of.  After a long conversation it turns out what they are trying to
> do is orthogonal.
> 
> The first (mine) is handling the case of non-dumpable tasks in user
> namespaces.
> 
> The second by Aleksa Sarai is trying to trying to relax the permission
> checks in proc so that non-dumpable is not as strict, to sort out some
> runC issues where they are having challenges coding themselves into a
> corner.  In the case of /proc/self I think there may be a case but in
> general relaxing the permission checks in proc gives me the Heebie
> Jeebies.
> 
> Andrew do you see merit in Aleksa's patch that I don't?  Otherwise can
> you remove it from your tree?

I have done so.