From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] fix SEM_UNDO with namespaces
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:14:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47F10DF7.5010702@colorfullife.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47F08ED6.1090103@openvz.org>
Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the attached patch should fix the combination of CLONE_NEWIPC with
>> shared sysv undo structures (the common case, just
>> sys_unshare(CLONE_NEWIPC)):
>> lookup_undo() now locates the undo array based on both semid and the
>> namespace pointer.
>>
>
> If you start using any IPC object and then call unshare with CLONE_NEWIPC,
> then it's your problem, but not the kernel.
>
The result is a kernel memory corruption, and kernel memory corruptions
are always the kernel's problem.
The code assumed that a semaphore id is globally unique. With
namespaces, this is not true anymore.
If two semaphore arrays exist with the same id, but different sizes,
then semops will cause memory corruptions: The undo structure contains
one element for each semaphore, thus the semop will write behind the end
of the memory allocation.
> I agree, that we should probably destroy this one when the task calls
> unshare, but trying to keep this list relevant is useless.
>
A very tricky question: Let's assume we have a process with two threads.
The undo structure is shared, as per opengroup standard.
Now one thread calls unshare(CLONE_NEWIPC). What should happen? We
cannot destroy the undo structure, the other thread might be still
interested in it.
If we allow sys_unshare() for multithreaded processes with CLONE_NEWIPC
and without CLONE_SYSVSEM, then we must handle this case.
--
Manfred
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-31 16:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-30 20:50 [RFC, PATCH] fix SEM_UNDO with namespaces Manfred Spraul
2008-03-31 7:12 ` Pavel Emelyanov
2008-03-31 16:14 ` Manfred Spraul [this message]
2008-04-01 9:44 ` Pavel Emelyanov
2008-04-01 14:15 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2008-04-03 19:04 ` Andrew Morton
2008-04-03 19:31 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-04-01 15:25 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-04-03 19:40 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-04-03 19:44 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2008-04-04 4:39 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2008-04-06 15:11 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-04-06 16:26 ` [PATCH] fix SEM_UNDO with namespaces, take 2 Manfred Spraul
2008-04-07 7:21 ` Pavel Emelyanov
2008-04-07 17:03 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-04-08 8:09 ` Pavel Emelyanov
2008-04-14 21:10 ` [RFC, PATCH] fix SEM_UNDO with namespaces Serge E. Hallyn
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=47F10DF7.5010702@colorfullife.com \
--to=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xemul@openvz.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