lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH v2 3/5] clone: Disallown CLONE_THREAD with a shared sighand_struct
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:

> On 04/02, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> --- a/kernel/fork.c
>> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
>> @@ -1515,6 +1515,13 @@ static __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
>> if ((clone_flags & CLONE_THREAD) && !(clone_flags & CLONE_SIGHAND))
>> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>
>> + /* Disallow CLONE_THREAD with a shared SIGHAND structure. No
>> + * one cares
>
> Well, can't resists... I won't argue, but we can't know if no one cares
> or not. I agree that most probably this won't break something, but who
> knows... I am always scared when we add the incompatible changes.

I agree that changing userspace semantics is something to be very
careful with. But at least for purposes of discussion I think this is a
good patch.

I can avoid this change but it requires moving sighand->siglock
into signal_struct and introducing a new spinlock into sighand_struct
to just guard the signal handlers.

However I think the change to move siglock would be a distraction from
the larger issues of this patchset.

Once we address the core issues I will be happy to revisit this.

>> and supporting it leads to unnecessarily complex
>> + * code.
>> + */
>> + if ((clone_flags & CLONE_THREAD) && (atomic_read(&current->sighand->count) > 1))
>> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> Perhaps the comment should explain why we do this and say that
> sighand-unsharing in de_thread() depends on this.

That would be a better comment.

Eric

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-04-05 19:42    [W:0.129 / U:1.480 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site