Re: [PATCH 3/3] fork: unify and tighten upCLONE_NEWUSER/CLONE_NEWPID checks

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 08/22, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Yes. Before this patch do_fork() did:
> >
> >         if (clone_flags & (CLONE_NEWUSER | CLONE_NEWPID)) {
> >                 if (clone_flags & (CLONE_THREAD|CLONE_PARENT))
> >                         return -EINVAL;
> >         }
> >
> > however, let me repeat, CLONE_PARENT after unshare(CLONE_NEWPID) was
> > allowed. With this patch CLONE_PARENT is nacked in both cases.
>
> Is this -stable-worthy?

Honestly, I do not know. I do not want to abuse -stable, and I will
sleep better if this patch won't go into the stable trees ;)

OTOH, I think that at least 1/3 is probably -stable material... Since
I am going to send v2, I would not mind to add stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
if both you and Eric agree.

Oleg.

--
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/