On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 06:55:13AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 06:52:06AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > Let's suppose that check_unsafe_exec() does not set LSM_UNSAFE_SHARE and > > drops ->siglock. After that, another sub-thread does clone(CLONE_FS) without > > CLONE_THREAD. > > Lovely. And yes, AFAICS that's a hole. > > > Unless we killed other threads, I can't see how we can check ->fs is not > > shared with another process, we can fool ->bprm_set_creds() anyway. > > We can't do that, until we are past the point of no return. Charming... > In principle, we can mark these threads as "-EAGAIN on such clone()" and > clean that on exec failure. ... or just do that to fs_struct. After finding that there's no outside users. Commenst? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
