[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202206141412.2B0732FF6C@keescook>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 14:14:35 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs/exec: allow to unshare a time namespace on
vfork+exec
On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 11:07:22PM -0700, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> Right now, a new process can't be forked in another time namespace
> if it shares mm with its parent. It is prohibited, because each time
> namespace has its own vvar page that is mapped into a process address
> space.
>
> When a process calls exec, it gets a new mm and so it could be "legal"
> to switch time namespace in that case. This was not implemented and
> now if we want to do this, we need to add another clone flag to not
> break backward compatibility.
>
> We don't have any user requests to switch times on exec except the
> vfork+exec combination, so there is no reason to add a new clone flag.
> As for vfork+exec, this should be safe to allow switching timens with
> the current clone flag. Right now, vfork (CLONE_VFORK | CLONE_VM) fails
> if a child is forked into another time namespace. With this change,
> vfork creates a new process in parent's timens, and the following exec
> does the actual switch to the target time namespace.
This seems like a very special case. None of the other namespaces do
this, do they?
How is CLONE_NEWTIME supposed to be used today?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists