On 11/09, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> > -static void check_unshare_flags(unsigned long *flags_ptr)
> > +static int check_unshare_flags(unsigned long unshare_flags)
> > {
> > + if (unshare_flags & ~(CLONE_THREAD|CLONE_FS|CLONE_NEWNS|CLONE_SIGHAND|
> > + CLONE_VM|CLONE_FILES|CLONE_SYSVSEM|
> > + CLONE_NEWUTS|CLONE_NEWIPC|CLONE_NEWNET))
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> Please put WARN_ON_ONCE() explicitly. That's good way to find hidden
> user if exist and getting better bug report.
Perhaps... but this needs a separate change.
Please note that this check was simply moved from sys_unshare(), this
patch shouldn't have any visible effect.
Personally, I think it would be even better if, say, unshare(CLONE_THREAD)
returned -EINVAL unconditionally.
> And, I've reveied this patch and I've found no fault. but I will not put
> my ack because I think I haven't understand original intention perhaps.
Thanks!
IIRC, the main (only?) motivation for sys_unshare() was unshare_fs().
Most probably unshare_thread/vm were added as placeholders.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>