mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>,
	Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>,
	Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] fix SEM_UNDO with namespaces
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:44:18 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080403194418.GA11105@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1od8tiom7.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>

Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xmission.com):
> Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org> writes:
> >>> I agree, that we should probably destroy this one when the task calls 
> >>> unshare, but trying to keep this list relevant is useless.
> >>>   
> >> A very tricky question: Let's assume we have a process with two threads.
> >> The undo structure is shared, as per opengroup standard.
> >> Now one thread calls unshare(CLONE_NEWIPC). What should happen? We 
> >> cannot destroy the undo structure, the other thread might be still 
> >> interested in it.
> >> If we allow sys_unshare() for multithreaded processes with CLONE_NEWIPC 
> >> and without CLONE_SYSVSEM, then we must handle this case.
> >
> > Hm... I'd simply disable creating any new namespaces for threads.
> > I think other namespaces developers agree with me. Serge, Suka, Eric
> > what do you think?
> 
> I almost agree.  sys_unshare() in a multithreaded process breaks
> all kinds of user space libs.  So you can only reasonably look at
> the problem as what we do with linux tasks that share some things
> and not others.  The posix/opengroup notion of processes and threads
> are a distraction.
> 
> In this case requiring it appears that to require unsharing both
> CLONE_SYSVSEM and CLONE_NEWIPC at the same time.  (i.e. unshare
> of CLONE_SYSVSEM should fail if CLONE_NEWIPC is not also specified).
> 
> Then to make it work we make unshare of SYSVSEM succeed when it is
> not shared.
> 
> This looks like about a 5 line patch or two.
> 
> The effect is because we don't support unsharing of SYSVSEM currently
> we don't support a threaded process unsharing the ipc namespace.
> 
> Eric

Eric, does the following patch correctly interpret your recommendation?

Pavel does it make sense to you?

thanks,
-serge

>From 9c85fb3cb80cea1d888c3c253a9fb6e9bc173649 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Serge E. Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:43:23 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] ipc namespaces: fix svsem unsharing issue

Refuse to unshare an ipcns if the semundo is shared and we
are not requesting a new SYSVSEM

Signed-off-by: Serge E. Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>
---
 ipc/namespace.c |   10 ++++++++++
 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ipc/namespace.c b/ipc/namespace.c
index 9171d94..9044505 100644
--- a/ipc/namespace.c
+++ b/ipc/namespace.c
@@ -48,6 +48,16 @@ struct ipc_namespace *copy_ipcs(unsigned long flags, struct ipc_namespace *ns)
 	if (!(flags & CLONE_NEWIPC))
 		return ns;
 
+	if (!(flags & CLONE_SYSVSEM)) {
+		if (!current->sysvsem.undo_list)
+			goto ok;
+		if (atomic_read(&current->sysvsem.undo_list->refcnt) == 1)
+			goto ok;
+		put_ipc_ns(ns);
+		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+	}
+
+ok:
 	new_ns = clone_ipc_ns(ns);
 
 	put_ipc_ns(ns);
-- 
1.5.3.6


  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-04-03 19:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-03-30 20:50 Manfred Spraul
2008-03-31  7:12 ` Pavel Emelyanov
2008-03-31 16:14   ` Manfred Spraul
2008-04-01  9:44     ` Pavel Emelyanov
2008-04-01 14:15       ` Serge E. Hallyn
2008-04-03 19:04         ` Andrew Morton
2008-04-03 19:31           ` Manfred Spraul
2008-04-01 15:25       ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-04-03 19:40         ` Manfred Spraul
2008-04-03 19:44         ` Serge E. Hallyn [this message]
2008-04-04  4:39           ` Serge E. Hallyn
2008-04-06 15:11             ` Manfred Spraul
2008-04-06 16:26               ` [PATCH] fix SEM_UNDO with namespaces, take 2 Manfred Spraul
2008-04-07  7:21                 ` Pavel Emelyanov
2008-04-07 17:03                   ` Manfred Spraul
2008-04-08  8:09                     ` Pavel Emelyanov
2008-04-14 21:10               ` [RFC, PATCH] fix SEM_UNDO with namespaces Serge E. Hallyn

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=20080403194418.GA11105@sergelap.austin.ibm.com \
    --to=serue@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
    --cc=sukadev@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=xemul@openvz.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®