> 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.
Ah, OK. you are right.
> > 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.
--
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>