Re: [PATCH 1/2] unshare: Unsharing a thread does not require unsharing a vm

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Fri Aug 14 2015 - 14:02:09 EST

On 08/13, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/13, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > In the sense of document when these tests apply I think it makes a
> > teensy bit of sense to have the CLONE_VM there. But if you want to send
> > me a cosmetic patch that removes that I will add it to my tree, with the
> > other two patches.
> Will do ;)

Yes, I still think it is pointless to check sighand->count if CLONE_VM.

> Eric, I need to run away, I'll try to answer other parts of our confusing
> discussion tomorrow.

No, lest stop it.

Yes, I was wrong, we can't avoid sighand->count check. Somehow I absolutely
forgot that we also need to ensure that unshare(SIGHAND) can't wrongly _fail_.


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