linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] shm: omit forced shm destroy if task IPC namespace was changed

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87pmsxorcc.fsf@disp2133>
Date:   Fri, 24 Sep 2021 11:45:07 -0500
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc:     Alexander Mihalicyn <alexander@...alicyn.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>,
        Jack Miller <millerjo@...ibm.com>,
        Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] shm: omit forced shm destroy if task IPC namespace was changed

Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com> writes:

> Hi Eric,
>
> I'd like to restart the discussion, the issue should be fixed.

Agreed.

I am going to come right out and say having read through everything
my suggests were confused and wrong.

Somehow I thought the cleanups I was suggesting world result in
shm_clist only being modified from the task that owns the list.
Which would result in no need to use a per-task list.

Having looked through my suggestions again I was completely wrong.

The only useful bit I have to contribute from that original suggestion
is let's please have smallish patches that change one thing at a time.

That code is sufficiently interesting that it is way too easy to get
lost in big patches.

I am not going to discuss my broken suggestions right now because every
time I look into them I go into a rabbit hole and I don't get anything
productive done on fixing these issues, just something close and
frustrating.  Apologies if I derailed your patch.

Eric