Re: [PATCH 1/2] unshare: Unsharing a thread does not require unsharing a vm

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 08/13, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > Let me first say that CLONE_SIGHAND must die, I think ;) and perhaps
> > even sighand_struct... I am wondering if we can add something like
> >
> > 	if ((clone_flags & (CLONE_THREAD | CLONE_SIGHAND)) == CLONE_SIGHAND)
> > 		pr_info("You are crazy, please report this to lkml\n");
> >
> > into copy_process().
>
> The only way killing CLONE_SIGHAND would be viable would be with a
> config option.  There are entire generations of linux where libpthreads
> used this before CLONE_THREAD was implemented.  Now perhaps no one cares
> anymore, but there are a lot of historic binairies that used it, even to
> the point where I know of at least one user outside of glibc's pthread
> implementation.

Heh. so we still need to keep it. Thanks.

> Yes.  A shared sighand_struct will have a shared ->mm.  But a private
> sighand_struct with count == 1 may also have a shared ->mm.

Yes sure. This just means that we can check current_is_single_threaded()
if CLONE_SIGHAND | CLONE_VM, signal->count check can be avoided.

> > Oh, I do not think we should check sighand->count. This can lead to
> > the same problem we have with the current current->mm->mm_users check.
> >
> > Most probably today nobody increments sighand->count (I didn't even
> > try to verify). But this is possible, and I saw the code which did
> > this to pin ->sighand...
>
> I have verified that copy_sighand is the only place in the kernel where
> we increment sighand->count today.

OK,

> de_thread in fs/exec.c even seems to
> rely on that.

Not really. This is just optimization, de_thread() could change ->sighand
unconditionally.

> So while I agree with you that the sighand->count could suffer a similar
> fate as mm_users it does not.

Ignoring the out-of-tree code ;)

Nevermind, I won't really argue, this all is mostly cosmetic. And perhaps
this sighand->count check in check_unshare_flags() makes this code look
a bit better / more understandable.

Still. How about the trivial *-fix.patch for -mm which simply does

	-	if (unshare_flags & (CLONE_SIGHAND | CLONE_VM)) {
	+	if (unshare_flags & CLONE_SIGHAND) {
			if (atomic_read(&current->sighand->count) > 1)
				return -EINVAL;
		}

again, this doesn't really matter. To this "| CLONE_VM" looks
very confusing to me.

Oleg.