From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 17:08:59 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov Message-ID: <20110704150859.GB6893@redhat.com> References: <20110622152514.GA9521@albatros> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110622152514.GA9521@albatros> Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC] ipc: introduce shm_rmid_forced sysctl To: Vasiliy Kulikov Cc: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Randy Dunlap , Andrew Morton , "Eric W. Biederman" , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Daniel Lezcano , Tejun Heo , Ingo Molnar , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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.