lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] fork: unify and tighten up CLONE_NEWUSER/CLONE_NEWPID checks
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/22, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On 08/22, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes. Before this patch do_fork() did:
>> >> >
>> >> > if (clone_flags & (CLONE_NEWUSER | CLONE_NEWPID)) {
>> >> > if (clone_flags & (CLONE_THREAD|CLONE_PARENT))
>> >> > return -EINVAL;
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > however, let me repeat, CLONE_PARENT after unshare(CLONE_NEWPID) was
>> >> > allowed. With this patch CLONE_PARENT is nacked in both cases.
>> >>
>> >> Is this -stable-worthy?
>> >
>> > Honestly, I do not know. I do not want to abuse -stable, and I will
>> > sleep better if this patch won't go into the stable trees ;)
>> >
>> > OTOH, I think that at least 1/3 is probably -stable material... Since
>> > I am going to send v2, I would not mind to add stable@vger.kernel.org
>> > if both you and Eric agree.
>>
>> This may allow creation of a process with tgid and pid in different
>> pid namespaces. If so, I have no idea what the consequences would be.
>
> and share the parent with the creator.
>
> Not good. But probably not too bad, one can abuse ->pidns_install()
> anyway, create a child in another ns, exit. Like it or not but pid_ns
> is "special" and you even sent the patch to reflect this sad^W fact.
>
> Anyway. The main point of this patch is the consistency (plus imho it
> cleanups/simplifies the code). Both CLONE_NEWPID and
> "task_active_pid_ns() != pid_ns" create a task in another namespace,
> we should use the same restrictions.
>
> And you seem to agree with this change, can I take it as your ack ?
> I am going to preserve your acks in 1-2 and resend.
>

Yes. These patches probably want Eric's ack, too, though -- it's his code.

--Andy


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-23 20:01    [W:0.081 / U:0.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site