From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>
Cc: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
daniel.lezcano@free.fr, ebiederm@xmission.com, mingo@elte.hu,
rdunlap@xenotime.net, tj@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH] shm: handle separate PID namespaces case
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 20:08:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110706180831.GA15379@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110706165732.GA4820@albatros>
On 07/06, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
>
> > > +void exit_shm(struct task_struct *task)
> > > +{
> > > + struct ipc_namespace *ns = task->nsproxy->ipc_ns;
> > > +
> > > + /* Destroy all already created segments, but not mapped yet */
> > > + down_write(&shm_ids(ns).rw_mutex);
> > > + if (&shm_ids(ns).in_use)
> > > + idr_for_each(&shm_ids(ns).ipcs_idr, &shm_try_destroy_current, ns);
> > > + up_write(&shm_ids(ns).rw_mutex);
> >
> > Having exit_shm() call shm_destroy_orphaned(task->nsproxy->ipc_ns) seems
> > more future-proof?
>
> shm_destroy_orphaned() doesn't clear ->shm_creator. Logically it sovles
> another problem - it is used ONLY to be consistent while changing
> kernel.shm_rmid_forced (having orphans with shm_rmid_forced=1 is not
> honest).
Yes, there are different things.
Cough. I stil think exit_shm() should check .in_use != 0 lockless.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-06 18:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-29 22:14 + ipc-introduce-shm_rmid_forced-sysctl.patch added to -mm tree akpm
[not found] ` <20110630134855.GA6165@mail.hallyn.com>
2011-06-30 13:57 ` [kernel-hardening] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-03 18:00 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-04 11:55 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH] shm: handle separate PID namespaces case Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-04 15:05 ` [kernel-hardening] " Oleg Nesterov
2011-07-04 15:26 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-04 15:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-07-04 15:48 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-04 17:01 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH] shm: optimize locking and ipc_namespace getting Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-04 17:29 ` [kernel-hardening] " Oleg Nesterov
2011-07-04 17:51 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-05 17:38 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v2] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-05 17:37 ` [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v2] shm: handle separate PID namespaces case Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-15 6:45 ` [kernel-hardening] " Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-05 14:26 ` [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH] " Serge Hallyn
2011-07-05 14:50 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-05 15:57 ` Serge Hallyn
2011-07-05 17:42 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-06 16:31 ` Serge Hallyn
2011-07-06 16:57 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-06 18:08 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2011-07-06 18:35 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-05 17:29 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
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=20110706180831.GA15379@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@free.fr \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
--cc=segoon@openwall.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.