From: Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] fork: check exit_signal passed in clone3() call
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 18:58:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190910175839.GA27330@asgard.redhat.com> (raw)
Hello.
After some consideration, I've decided to utilise Oleg's proposal[1]
"(args.exit_signal & ~((u64)CSIGNAL))" as a check. I still don't like
it, as it mixes argument copy check (I'm not sure if it's ever needed,
however, as I'm not sure if there's a reason for exit_signal field
of struct kernel_clone_args to have int type) with argument sanity
check; moreover, it covers only clone3 case, and the code in
copy_process is still error-prone in the long run. Ideally, the check
should be somewhere in the one place, but as of now this one place
is likely _do_fork, but it's kinda weir to have argument check there
as of now.
Changes since v1[2]:
- Check changed to comparison against negated CSIGNAL to address
the bug reported by Oleg[3].
- Added a comment to _do_fork that exit_signal has to be checked
by the caller.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/10/581
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/10/411
[3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/10/467
Eugene Syromiatnikov (1):
fork: check exit_signal passed in clone3() call
kernel/fork.c | 12 ++++++++++++
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
--
2.1.4
next reply other threads:[~2019-09-10 17:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-10 17:58 Eugene Syromiatnikov [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-09-10 17:58 [PATCH v2] fork: check exit_signal passed in clone3() call Eugene Syromiatnikov
2019-09-11 13:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-09-11 13:47 ` Christian Brauner
2019-09-11 13:48 ` Andrew Morton
2019-09-11 13:52 ` Christian Brauner
2019-09-11 14:16 ` Christian Brauner
2019-09-11 14:32 ` Eugene Syromiatnikov
2019-09-11 14:54 ` Christian Brauner
2019-09-11 15:08 ` Dmitry V. Levin
2019-09-11 15:20 ` Eugene Syromiatnikov
2019-09-11 15:31 ` Christian Brauner
2019-09-13 9:07 ` Christian Brauner
2019-09-11 17:32 ` Eric W. Biederman
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=20190910175839.GA27330@asgard.redhat.com \
--to=esyr@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=ldv@altlinux.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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