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: <20180917162342.GB25565@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:23:42 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        berrange@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] exec: Simplify unshare_files

absolutely off-topic question,

On 09/16, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> @@ -747,11 +746,9 @@ void do_coredump(const siginfo_t *siginfo)
>  	}
>
>  	/* get us an unshared descriptor table; almost always a no-op */
> -	retval = unshare_files(&displaced);
> +	retval = unshare_files();

I fail to understand why do_coredump() needs unshare_files(). Could someone
explain?

And "almost always a no-op" above is not true, this is never a no-op in mt case;
other (killed) threads sleep in exit_mm() which is called before exit_files().

Oleg.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ