From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cedric Le Goater Subject: Re: [PATCH] Masquerade sender information Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:05:48 +0100 Message-ID: <472B2EBC.3010504@fr.ibm.com> References: <20071027190216.GB10397@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Containers , Oleg Nesterov , Pavel Emelianov List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Eric W. Biederman wrote: > sukadev-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org writes: > >> +static void masquerade_sender(struct task_struct *t, struct sigqueue *q) >> +{ >> + /* >> + * If the sender does not have a pid_t in the receiver's active >> + * pid namespace, set si_pid to 0 and pretend signal originated >> + * from the kernel. >> + */ >> + if (!pid_ns_equal(t)) { >> + q->info.si_pid = 0; >> + q->info.si_uid = 0; >> + q->info.si_code = SI_KERNEL; >> + } >> +} > > It looks like we are hooked in the right place. However the way we > are handling this appears wrong. > > First. If we have an si_code that does not use si_pid then we should > not be changing si_pid, because the structure is a union and that field > is not always a pid value. > > > My gut feel says the code should be something like: > > switch (q->info->si_code & __SI_MASK) { > case __SI_KILL: > case __SI_CHILD: > case __SI_RT: > case __MESQ: > q->info->si_pid = task_pid_nr_ns(current, t->nsproxy->pid_ns); > break; > } IMHO, it should be q->info->si_pid = 0. we're trying to cover the case where the sender does not have a pid_t in the receiver's active pid namespace. C.