[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110705172902.GA5626@albatros>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 21:29:02 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>, daniel.lezcano@...e.fr,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, mingo@...e.hu, oleg@...hat.com,
rdunlap@...otime.net, tj@...nel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] shm: handle separate PID namespaces case
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 15:55 +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> shm_try_destroy_orphaned() and shm_try_destroy_current() didn't handle
> the case of separate PID namespaces, but a single IPC namespace. If
> there are tasks with the same PID values using the same shmem object,
> the wrong destroy decision could be reached.
>
> On shm segment creation store the pointer to the creator task in
> shmid_kernel->shm_creator field and zero it on task exit. Then
> use the ->shm_creator insread of ->shm_cprid in both functions.
> As shmid_kernel object is already locked at this stage, no additional
> locking is needed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
> ---
[...]
> + if (!ns->shm_forced_rmid) {
Oops, this patch is based on my old tree where it was shm_forced_rmid
instead of shm_rmid_forced. I'll resend these 2 patches. Sorry for the
noise...
--
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
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.
