[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200421150840.gevtsrhdec5wwg6y@wittgenstein>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:08:40 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Christof Meerwald <cmeerw@...erw.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: Avoid corrupting si_pid and si_uid in
do_notify_parent
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 09:57:09AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:05:38PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> >> index 9899c5f91ee1..a88a89422227 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> >> @@ -1993,8 +1993,12 @@ bool do_notify_parent(struct task_struct *tsk, int sig)
> >> if (psig->action[SIGCHLD-1].sa.sa_handler == SIG_IGN)
> >> sig = 0;
> >> }
> >> + /*
> >> + * Bypass send_signal as the si_pid and si_uid values have
> >> + * been generated in the parent's namespaces.
> >> + */
> >
> > At first I misread that comment as saying that we're skipping sending a
> > signal not that it relates to a specific function (and I won't admit that
> > I wrote a whole long paragraph on why I'm confused we're skipping
> > sending signals on invalid si_pid and si_uid...).
>
> I have updated the comment to read:
> + /*
> + * Send with __send_signal as si_pid and si_uid are in the
> + * parent's namespaces.
> + */
>
> That should be enough of a hint for someone to read the code and figure
> out what is going on.
Perfect, thanks!
Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Christian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists