On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 08:47:12PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 3:35 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > This is the work mainly by Alexey Gladkov to limit rlimits to the
> > rlimits of the user that created a user namespace, and to allow users to
> > have stricter limits on the resources created within a user namespace.
>
> I guess all the performance issues got sorted, since I haven't seen
> any reports from the test robots.
>
> I do end up with two questions, mainly because of looking at the
> result of the conflict resolution.
>
> In particular, in __sigqueue_alloc(), two oddities..
>
> Why the "sigpending < LONG_MAX" test in that
>
> if (override_rlimit || (sigpending < LONG_MAX && sigpending <=
> task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING))) {
>
> thing?
inc_rlimit_ucounts() returns long and uses LONG_MAX as an overflow flag.
At the same time, we have increased the size of sigpending from int to
long.
> And why test for "ucounts" being non-NULL in
>
> if (ucounts && dec_rlimit_ucounts(ucounts,
> UCOUNT_RLIMIT_SIGPENDING, 1))
> put_ucounts(ucounts);
>
> when afaik both of those should be happy with a NULL 'ucounts' pointer
> (if it was NULL, we certainly already used it for the reverse
> operations for get_ucounts() and inc_rlimit_ucounts()..)
The get_ucount() can theoretically return NULL. It increments the
reference counter and if it overflows, the function will return NULL.
> Hmm?
>
> And somebody should verify that I didn't screw anything up in my merge
> resolution. It all looked very straightforward, but mistakes happen..
--
Rgrds, legion
