From: "Michael Kerrisk" <mtk-lkml@gmx.net>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: hugh@veritas.com, chrisw@osdl.org, manfred@colorfullife.com,
torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, michael.kerrisk@gmx.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Further shmctl() SHM_LOCK strangeness
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:30:14 +0100 (MET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <15277.1101400214@www65.gmx.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0411250941230.10497@chimarrao.boston.redhat.com>
Rik,
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
> > I don't think this is sufficient -- there must
> > be protection against arbitrary SHM_LOCKs.
>
> Why? We already have ulimits do that...
My gut feeling is that processes should not be able to
arbitrarily lock shared memory segments created by other
users in memory. I mean: why should I be able to
someone else's segment into shared memory when I
can't even access the contents of that shared memory.
(Such semantics are simply inconsistent with the
System V IPC model.)
Also (more below), I don't see any other sensible
semantics for these operations, other than the ones
I've proposed.
> > How about the following:
> >
> > For *both* SHM_LOCK and SHM_UNLOCK, the process should either
> > be the owner or the creator of the object or have the
> > CAP_IPC_LOCK capability.
>
> It makes a lot of sense, but I don't know whether or not
> it'd break any applications...
There is no reason why it should. In 2.6.8, the only
processes that could lock shared memory segments were those
with CAP_IPC_LOCK. Unprivileged processes did not get a
look in.
2.6.9 changed things, but it is very unlikely that
any applications depend on this (yet). Most userland
developers are probably not even aware of the changed
semantics in 2.6.9. The time to repair these
semantics is *now*, before someone does depend
on them. (In any case changes are required, since
at a minimum, SHM_UNLOCK must be repaired.)
You earlier suggested the idea that SHM_UNLOCK
might check to see if the process's user ID matched
that of the process that did the SHM_LOCK. This
doesn't work. Suppose someone else locks *my* segment
(even though they don't have permission to access its
contents or perform other "ctl" operations on it like
IPC_RMID). Under your idea, I would not be able to
do a SHM_UNLOCK to remove that lock.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Geschenkt: 3 Monate GMX ProMail + 3 Top-Spielfilme auf DVD
++ Jetzt kostenlos testen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail ++
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-26 20:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-11-23 16:36 [PATCH 2.6.10-rc2] RLIMIT_MEMLOCK accounting of shmctl() SHM_LOCK is broken Michael Kerrisk
2004-11-23 17:04 ` Andrew Morton
2004-11-23 17:55 ` Michael Kerrisk
2004-11-23 18:31 ` Hugh Dickins
2004-11-24 20:14 ` Further shmctl() SHM_LOCK strangeness Michael Kerrisk
2004-11-24 21:41 ` Hugh Dickins
2004-11-25 3:17 ` Rik van Riel
2004-11-25 8:50 ` Michael Kerrisk
2004-11-25 11:40 ` Rik van Riel
2004-11-25 12:45 ` Michael Kerrisk
2004-11-25 14:42 ` Rik van Riel
2004-11-25 16:30 ` Michael Kerrisk [this message]
2004-11-25 8:45 ` Michael Kerrisk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=15277.1101400214@www65.gmx.net \
--to=mtk-lkml@gmx.net \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=chrisw@osdl.org \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=michael.kerrisk@gmx.net \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®