[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACVxJT_Sud7tNv23yOOqG7Uh5zFPDnz1anS7pTr0ChpCSMvZDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:38:12 +0200
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, Gargi Sharma <gs051095@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: proc_flush_task oops
On 12/21/17, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> I have stared at this code, and written some test programs and I can't
> see what is going on. alloc_pid by design and in implementation (as far
> as I can see) is always single threaded when allocating the first pid
> in a pid namespace. idr_init always initialized idr_next to 0.
>
> So how we can get past:
>
> if (unlikely(is_child_reaper(pid))) {
> if (pid_ns_prepare_proc(ns)) {
> disable_pid_allocation(ns);
> goto out_free;
> }
> }
>
> with proc_mnt still set to NULL is a mystery to me.
>
> Is there any chance the idr code doesn't always return the lowest valid
> free number? So init gets assigned something other than 1?
Well, this theory is easy to test (attached).
There is a "valid" way to break the code via kernel.ns_last_pid:
unshare+write+fork but the reproducer doesn't seem to use it (or it does?)
View attachment "pid1.diff" of type "text/plain" (1214 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists