[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110704150859.GB6893@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 17:08:59 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] ipc: introduce shm_rmid_forced sysctl
On 06/22, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
>
> +void exit_shm(struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> + struct nsproxy *nsp = task->nsproxy;
> + struct ipc_namespace *ns;
> +
> + if (!nsp)
> + return;
> + ns = nsp->ipc_ns;
> + if (!ns || !ns->shm_rmid_forced)
This looks confusing, imho. How it is possible that ->nsproxy or
->ipc_ns is NULL?
> + return;
> +
> + /* Destroy all already created segments, but not mapped yet */
> + down_write(&shm_ids(ns).rw_mutex);
> + idr_for_each(&shm_ids(ns).ipcs_idr, &shm_try_destroy_current, ns);
> up_write(&shm_ids(ns).rw_mutex);
Again, I do not pretend I understand ipc/, but it seems we can check
ns->ipc_ids[].in_use != 0 before the slow path, no?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
