Re: [PATCH] user_ns: use correct check for single-threadedness

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 08/06, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 08/05, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > So I have to ask.
>
> I hope you are asking someone else, not me ;) I never understood what
> exactly we try to restrict and why.
>
> > Is it possible to rework these checks such that we
> > look at the sighand struct and signal sharing handling sharing instead
> > of the count on the mm_struct?
>
> Then why we can't simply check thread_group_empty() == T ? Why should we
> worry about CLONE_SIGHAND at all?

The same for clone() actually... I forgot why we decided to check
CLONE_SIGHAND, iirc I suggested CLONE_THREAD initially then we switched
to CLONE_SIGHAND "just in case", to make it as strict as possible.

How about the patch below?

(note that the "or parent" part of the comment is wrong in any case).

Oleg.


--- x/kernel/fork.c
+++ x/kernel/fork.c
@@ -1279,10 +1279,9 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(
 
 	/*
 	 * If the new process will be in a different pid or user namespace
-	 * do not allow it to share a thread group or signal handlers or
-	 * parent with the forking task.
+	 * do not allow it to share a thread group with the forking task.
 	 */
-	if (clone_flags & CLONE_SIGHAND) {
+	if (clone_flags & CLONE_THREAD) {
 		if ((clone_flags & (CLONE_NEWUSER | CLONE_NEWPID)) ||
 		    (task_active_pid_ns(current) !=
 				current->nsproxy->pid_ns_for_children))

--
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/