Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 06:01:09 -0700 menage@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > This patch adds support for container_clone(), a speculative interface
> > to creating new containers intended to be used for systems such as
> > namespace unsharing.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > +
> > +static atomic_t namecnt;
> > +static void get_unused_name(char *buf)
> > +{
> > + sprintf(buf, "node%d", atomic_inc_return(&namecnt));
> > +}
>
> A stupid thing, but a sufficiently determined attacker could cause this to
> wrap.
Yeah, this was very consciously done as a "just make it work for now"
naming system. If we want to stick with this naming, then I suppose we
could do a global bitmap.
But imo this naming is not very convenient - it would be nicer if we
a) allowed users to specify a name (not sure how that would work
logistically)
b) made the namecnt variable for automatically named containers
be per-directory. I'd much rather see
/containers/node1/node1
/containers/node2
than
/containers/node1/node3
/containers/node2
(assuming /node2 was created between /node1 and /node1/node1 or
/node1/node3)
thanks,
-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
