On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 12:09:01PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
>
> > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 8:52 AM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>>
> >>> > Why the "sigpending < LONG_MAX" test in that
> >>> >
> >>> > if (override_rlimit || (sigpending < LONG_MAX && sigpending <=
> >>> > task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING))) {
> >>> > thing?
> >>>
> >>> On second look that sigpending < LONG_MAX check is necessary. When
> >>> inc_rlimit_ucounts detects a problem it returns LONG_MAX.
> >>
> >> I saw that, but _without_ that test you'd be left with just that
> >>
> >> sigpending <= task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING)
> >>
> >> and if task_rlimit() is LONG_MAX, then that means "no limits", so it is all ok.
> >
> > It means no limits locally. The creator of your user namespace might
> > have had a limit which you are also bound by.
> >
> > The other possibility is that inc_rlimits_ucounts caused a sigpending
> > counter to overflow. In which case we need to fail and run
> > dec_rlimit_ucounts to keep the counter from staying overflowed.
> >
> > So I don't see a clever way to avoid the sigpending < LONG_MAX test.
>
> Hmm. I take that back. There is a simple clever way to satisfy all of
> the tests.
>
> - sigpending < LONG_MAX && sigpending <= task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING)
> + sigpending < task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING)
>
> That would just need a small comment to explain the subtleties.
Is it because user.sigpending was atomic_t before this patch ?
--
Rgrds, legion
