From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754119Ab3HVSis (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:38:48 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50871 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753419Ab3HVSir (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:38:47 -0400
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 20:32:50 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Brad Spengler <spender@grsecurity.net>,
        Colin Walters <walters@redhat.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] fork: unify and tighten up
	CLONE_NEWUSER/CLONE_NEWPID checks
Message-ID: <20130822183250.GA23769@redhat.com>
References: <20130822170939.GA20296@redhat.com> <20130822171004.GA20324@redhat.com> <CALCETrU9D59MqxPm2SNegPFH_+gpPfoQJkD2E2Q8zjJ94QhLDg@mail.gmail.com> <20130822181536.GA22995@redhat.com> <CALCETrW3gnXjUqvm-jNZq6k_qSnTN5=VNRCp+gNC+t2YtBBMYQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrW3gnXjUqvm-jNZq6k_qSnTN5=VNRCp+gNC+t2YtBBMYQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 08/22, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yes. Before this patch do_fork() did:
> >
> >         if (clone_flags & (CLONE_NEWUSER | CLONE_NEWPID)) {
> >                 if (clone_flags & (CLONE_THREAD|CLONE_PARENT))
> >                         return -EINVAL;
> >         }
> >
> > however, let me repeat, CLONE_PARENT after unshare(CLONE_NEWPID) was
> > allowed. With this patch CLONE_PARENT is nacked in both cases.
>
> Is this -stable-worthy?

Honestly, I do not know. I do not want to abuse -stable, and I will
sleep better if this patch won't go into the stable trees ;)

OTOH, I think that at least 1/3 is probably -stable material... Since
I am going to send v2, I would not mind to add stable@vger.kernel.org
if both you and Eric agree.

Oleg.