Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:32:00 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] exec: Make do_coredump more robust and safer when using pipes in core_pattern (v3) |
| |
On 06/28, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:24:55AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > Perhaps this sysctl should be added in a separate patch? This patch mixes > > differents things imho. > > > No, I disagree. If we're going to have a sysctl, It should be added in this > patch. I agree that since these processes run as root, we can have all sort of > bad things happen. But I think theres an advantage to being able to limit the > damage that a core_pattern process can do if it never exits.
Yes, but why it should be added in this patch?
> > But in fact I don't really understand why do we need the new sysctl. Yes, > > if the collecting process never exits, the coredumping thread can't be reaped. > > But this process runs as root, it can do other bad things. And let's suppose > > it just does nothing, say sleeps forever, and do not read the data from pipe. > > In that case, regardless of any sysctls, ->core_dump() never finishes too. > > > Not always true, in the event that the core file is smaller than the pipe size.
sure,
> But regardless, if ->core_dump never returns due to the aforementioned > situation, the sysctl provides the ability to mitigate the damange that can do, > since the dump count is held while ->core_dump is called.
Yes, I misread the sysctl code. Perhaps another reason to split this patch ;)
Oleg.
| |