From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>
To: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>,
daniel.lezcano@free.fr, ebiederm@xmission.com, mingo@elte.hu,
oleg@redhat.com, rdunlap@xenotime.net, tj@kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH] shm: handle separate PID namespaces case
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 21:29:02 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110705172902.GA5626@albatros> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110704115523.GA11252@albatros>
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@openwall.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
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-05 17:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <201106292214.p5TMEtHg015372@imap1.linux-foundation.org>
[not found] ` <20110630134855.GA6165@mail.hallyn.com>
2011-06-30 13:57 ` [kernel-hardening] Re: + ipc-introduce-shm_rmid_forced-sysctl.patch added to -mm tree 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
2011-07-06 18:35 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2011-07-05 17:29 ` Vasiliy Kulikov [this message]
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=20110705172902.GA5626@albatros \
--to=segoon@openwall.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=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
--cc=serge.hallyn@canonical.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox