[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWT5u=dpRadn_dHosa0YEpC9j_-Gttu7qk1pOrN9XmfUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 09:36:40 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] security: Use user_namespace::level to avoid redundant
iterations in cap_capable()
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> When ns->level is not larger then cred->user_ns->level,
> then ns can't be cred->user_ns's descendant, and
> there is no a sence to search in parents.
>
> So, breake the cycle earlier and skip needless iterations.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
> ---
> security/commoncap.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/commoncap.c b/security/commoncap.c
> index 78b37838a2d3..f6ef78208d2d 100644
> --- a/security/commoncap.c
> +++ b/security/commoncap.c
> @@ -82,8 +82,11 @@ int cap_capable(const struct cred *cred, struct user_namespace *targ_ns,
> if (ns == cred->user_ns)
> return cap_raised(cred->cap_effective, cap) ? 0 : -EPERM;
>
> - /* Have we tried all of the parent namespaces? */
> - if (ns == &init_user_ns)
> + /*
> + * If ns can't be a descendant of cred->user_ns, then it's
> + * needlessly to go up.
> + */
> + if (ns->level <= cred->user_ns->level)
> return -EPERM;
This is a nice improvement, but the comment could be better. How
about "If we're already at a lower level than we're looking for, we're
done searching."
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists