Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> writes: > On 08/19, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > So do you think this change is fine or not (ignoring the fact it needs >> > cleanups) ? >> >> I think that removing the CLONE_VM check is fine (although there are >> some other ones that should probably be removed as well), but I'm not >> sure if that check needs replacing with something else. > > OK, thanks... but I still can't understand. > > The patch I sent is equivalent to the new one below. I just tried to > unify it with another check in do_fork().
The patch below also needs CLONE_SIGHAND. You can't meaningfully share signal handlers if you can't represent the pid in the siginfo. pids and signals are too interconnected. Eric > Oleg. > > --- x/kernel/fork.c > +++ x/kernel/fork.c > @@ -1176,7 +1176,7 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process( > * If the new process will be in a different pid namespace > * don't allow the creation of threads. > */ > - if ((clone_flags & (CLONE_VM|CLONE_NEWPID)) && > + if ((clone_flags & (CLONE_THREAD | CLONE_PARENT | CLONE_NEWPID)) && > (task_active_pid_ns(current) != current->nsproxy->pid_ns)) > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
