Re: PATCH? fix unshare(NEWPID) && vfork()

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/19, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Hello.
>> >
>> > Colin reports that vfork() doesn't work after unshare(PIDNS). The
>> > reason is trivial, copy_process() does:
>> >
>> >         /*
>> >          * If the new process will be in a different pid namespace
>> >          * don't allow the creation of threads.
>> >          */
>> >         if ((clone_flags & (CLONE_VM|CLONE_NEWPID)) &&
>> >             (task_active_pid_ns(current) != current->nsproxy->pid_ns))
>> >                 return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> >
>> > and CLONE_VM obviously nacks vfork(). So perhaps we can relax
>> > this check to CLONE_THREAD? Or should we really nack CLONE_VM
>> > by security reasons?
>> >
>> > OTOH. Perhaps we should also deny CLONE_PARENT in this case?
>> >
>> > In short. So far I am thinking about the patch below but I got
>> > lost and totally confused. Will try to think more tomorrow, but
>> > I would like to see the fix from someone who still understands
>> > this all.
>> >
>> > Oleg.
>>
>> By way of (partial) explanation:
>>
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135545831607095
>
> Thanks... too late for me to even try to read this discussion today.
>
> and I am a bit confused,
>
>> (tl;dr: I think that CLONE_VM is irrelevant here, but there may be
>> other issues lurking around.)
>
> So do you think this change is fine or not (ignoring the fact it needs
> cleanups) ?

I think that removing the CLONE_VM check is fine (although there are
some other ones that should probably be removed as well), but I'm not
sure if that check needs replacing with something else.

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/