Re: [RFC] ipc: introduce shm_rmid_forced sysctl

[Vasiliy Kulikov]

On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 17:44 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/04, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 17:08 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 06/22, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +void exit_shm(struct task_struct *task)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct nsproxy *nsp = task->nsproxy;
> > > > +	struct ipc_namespace *ns;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!nsp)
> > > > +		return;
> > > > +	ns = nsp->ipc_ns;
> > > > +	if (!ns || !ns->shm_rmid_forced)
> > >
> > > This looks confusing, imho. How it is possible that ->nsproxy or
> > > ->ipc_ns is NULL?
> >
> > I spotted the same checking logic in other places.  I don't know whether
> > it is redundant, I guess it can happen when the namespace is dying.
> > Probably it cannot happed inside of task do_exit(), only for extern
> > observers.
> 
> No, afaics it can't happen in do_exit() until we call exit_notify().
> Otherwise, for example, any dying child will OOPS in do_notify_parent().
> Or please look at exit_sem()->sem_lock_check(tsk->nsproxy->ipc_ns).

Looks you're still right :)

-- 
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/