On 08/20, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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(). > > I was confused.
Andy, I do not know how much you were confused, but I bet I am confused much more ;) > Currently (with or without your patch), vfork() followed by > unshare(CLONE_NEWUSER) or unshare(CLONE_NEWPID) will unshare the VM. Could you spell please? We never unshare the VM. CLONE_VM in sys_unshare() paths just means "fail unless ->mm is not shared". Oleg. -- 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/
