Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 7 Aug 2019 18:08:56 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Adrian Reber <areber@redhat.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Pavel Emelianov <xemul@virtuozzo.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrei Vagin <avagin@gmail.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
        Radostin Stoyanov <rstoyanov1@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] fork: extend clone3() to support CLONE_SET_TID
Message-ID: <20190807160856.GE24112@redhat.com>
References: <20190806191551.22192-1-areber@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190806191551.22192-1-areber@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 08/06, Adrian Reber wrote:
>
> @@ -2573,6 +2575,14 @@ noinline static int copy_clone_args_from_user(struct kernel_clone_args *kargs,
>  		.tls		= args.tls,
>  	};
>  
> +	if (size == sizeof(struct clone_args)) {
> +		/* Only check permissions if set_tid is actually set. */
> +		if (args.set_tid &&
> +			!ns_capable(pid_ns->user_ns, CAP_SYS_ADMIN))

and I just noticed this uses pid_ns = task_active_pid_ns() ...

is it correct?

I feel I am totally confused, but should we use the same
p->nsproxy->pid_ns_for_children passed to alloc_pid?

Oleg.