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: 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 [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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox