From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 3/5] clone: Disallown CLONE_THREAD with a shared sighand_struct Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 20:11:03 +0200 Message-ID: <20170405181103.GA19444@redhat.com> References: <87d1dyw5iw.fsf@xmission.com> <87tw7aunuh.fsf@xmission.com> <87lgsmunmj.fsf_-_@xmission.com> <20170304170312.GB13131@redhat.com> <8760ir192p.fsf@xmission.com> <878tnkpv8h.fsf_-_@xmission.com> <874ly6a0h1.fsf_-_@xmission.com> <87k2728lrp.fsf_-_@xmission.com> <20170405162458.GF14536@redhat.com> <87o9waep28.fsf@xmission.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87o9waep28.fsf@xmission.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Andrew Morton , Aleksa Sarai , Andy Lutomirski , Attila Fazekas , Jann Horn , Kees Cook , Michal Hocko , Ulrich Obergfell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 04/05, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov writes: > > I agree that changing userspace semantics is something to be very > careful with. But at least for purposes of discussion I think this is a > good patch. I agree that we need it with your approach, but imo it would be much better to not depend on the subtle changes like this. My 2/2 or your 1/5 are already bad enough. > I can avoid this change but it requires moving sighand->siglock > into signal_struct and introducing a new spinlock into sighand_struct > to just guard the signal handlers. Oh, this looks much, much worse to me. Oleg.