[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201207223223.GB4115853@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 22:32:23 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, criu@...nvz.org,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Daniel P . Berrangé <berrange@...hat.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/24] exec: Simplify unshare_files
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 10:25:13AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:52 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone explain why does do_coredump() need unshare_files() at all?
>
> Hmm. It goes back to 2012, and it's placed just before calling
> "->core_dump()", so I assume some core dumping function messed with
> the file table back when..
>
> I can't see anything like that currently.
>
> The alternative is that core-dumping just keeps the file table around
> for a long while, and thus files don't actually close in a timely
> manner. So it might not be a "correctness" issue as much as a latency
> issue.
IIRC, it was "weird architecture hooks might be playing silly buggers
with some per-descriptor information they want in coredumps, better
make sure it can't change under them"; it doesn't cost much and
it reduced the analysis surface nicely.
Had been a while ago, so the memories might be faulty... Anyway, that
reasoning seems to be applicable right now - rather than keeping an
eye on coredump logics on random architectures that might be looking
at descriptor table in unsafe way, just make sure they have a stable
private table and be done with that.
How much is simplified by not doing it there, anyway?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists