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 20:05:35 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc:     Adrian Reber <areber@redhat.com>,
        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: <20190807180534.rhojrgy4j52n2eup@wittgenstein>
References: <20190806191551.22192-1-areber@redhat.com>
 <20190807160856.GE24112@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190807160856.GE24112@redhat.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 06:08:56PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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?

We need to have CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the owning user namespace of the target
pidns for the pidns in which we spawn the new process. The value for
pid_ns_for_children could've been altered by either passing CLONE_NEWPID
or by having called unshare(CLONE_NEWPID) before. So yes,
pid_ns_for_children is what we want.

Sorry again for the delay in my responses. On vacation atm.

Christian