Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Deny CLONE_PARENT|CLONE_NEWPID combination.
>
> CLONE_PARENT was probably used to implement an older threading model.
Yes it was.
> If so, for consistency with CLONE_THREAD, the CLONE_PARENT|CLONE_NEWPID
> combination should also fail with -EINVAL.
CLONE_THREAD can not work with CLONE_NEWPID because the processes share
a signal queue.
I can see a similar argument going for CLONE_SIGHAND even though there is not
as much sharing there. I don't see how CLONE_PARENT could cause any harm.
Without CLONE_SIGHAND.
Eric
> Signed-off-by: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/pid_namespace.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-mmotm/kernel/pid_namespace.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-mmotm.orig/kernel/pid_namespace.c 2009-06-17 18:19:42.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-mmotm/kernel/pid_namespace.c 2009-06-17 18:19:58.000000000 -0700
> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ struct pid_namespace *copy_pid_ns(unsign
> {
> if (!(flags & CLONE_NEWPID))
> return get_pid_ns(old_ns);
> - if (flags & CLONE_THREAD)
> + if (flags & (CLONE_THREAD|CLONE_PARENT))
> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> return create_pid_namespace(old_ns);
> }
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
