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

From: Eric W. Biederman
Date: Wed Aug 12 2015 - 11:18:29 EST

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 08/11, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> 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.
>> I do agree that making the test be for CLONE_THREAD is safe, makes
>> sense, and is less confusing than what we have now.x
> Good,
>> > How about the patch below?
>> >
>> > (note that the "or parent" part of the comment is wrong in any case).
>> It was correct.
> Yes, I know,
>> You failed to removed it when you removed CLONE_PARENT
>> from that test.
> Cough... it was you ;) 1f7f4dde5c945f41a7abc2285be43d918029ecc5
> "fork: Allow CLONE_PARENT after setns(CLONE_NEWPID)".

So it was. I must have tired when I read the git log last night.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at