linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] fork: extend clone3() to support CLONE_SET

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: <20190812165130.d3b5smm45dpxk6m4@wittgenstein>
Date:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 18:51:30 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     Adrian Reber <areber@...hat.com>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Radostin Stoyanov <rstoyanov1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] fork: extend clone3() to support CLONE_SET_TID

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 06:37:10PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/11, Adrian Reber wrote:
> >
> >  include/linux/pid.h        |  2 +-
> >  include/linux/sched/task.h |  1 +
> >  include/uapi/linux/sched.h |  1 +
> >  kernel/fork.c              | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  kernel/pid.c               | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >  5 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> Looks good to me...
> 
> A couple of nits below, but I won't insist, feel free to ignore.
> 
> > +/*
> > + * Different sizes of struct clone_args
> > + */
> > +#define CLONE3_ARGS_SIZE_V0 64
> 
> I don't really understand why do we want the "size < CLONE3_ARGS_SIZE_V0"
> check in copy_clone_args_from_user(), but I won't argue.

To make sure a user can't give us a garbage sized struct that is smaller
than the initial version of the struct. Hm, maybe you did make a
suggestion how to detect this case that I missed in one of the previous
reviews or why it's not needed?