From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752790AbcGYTWs (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:22:48 -0400
Received: from mail-lf0-f48.google.com ([209.85.215.48]:33556 "EHLO
	mail-lf0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751105AbcGYTWp (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:22:45 -0400
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:22:42 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Stanislav Kinsburskiy <skinsbursky@virtuozzo.com>, peterz@infradead.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, mhocko@suse.com, keescook@chromium.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mguzik@redhat.com, bsegall@google.com,
        john.stultz@linaro.org, oleg@redhat.com, matthltc@us.ibm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, luto@amacapital.net, vbabka@suse.cz,
        xemul@virtuozzo.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] prctl: remove one-shot limitation for changing exe link
Message-ID: <20160725192242.GA26208@uranus>
References: <20160712152940.24895.61315.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
 <8a863273-c571-63d6-c0c3-637dff5645a3@virtuozzo.com>
 <87y44pbmtc.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87y44pbmtc.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 01:21:51PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Stanislav Kinsburskiy <skinsbursky@virtuozzo.com> writes:
> 
> > Gentlemen,
> >
> > Looks like there are no objections to this patch.
> 
> There has been objection.
> 
> The only justification for the change that has been put forward is
> someone doing a restore lazily.  I don't see a reason why you can't call
> prctl_set_mm_exe_file until you have the file in place instead of a
> place holder that sounds like a trivial solution to any restore issues.
> 
> The truth is an unlimited settable exe link is essentially meaningless,
> as you can't depend on it for anything.  One shot seems the best
> compromise I have seen put forward between the definite
> checkpoint/restart requirement to set the this value and the general
> need to have something that makes sense and people can depend on for
> system management.
>
> Also there is a big fat bug in prctl_set_mm_exe_file.  It doesn't
> validate that the new file is a actually mmaped executable.  We would
> definitely need that to be fixed before even considering removing the
> limit.

Could you please elaborate? We check for inode being executable,
what else needed?

> Right now all I see is people involved in the implementation details of
> their own little feature
> 
> So for the patch I am responding to:
> Nacked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> 
> Plus the merge window is open so no one is taking any patches right now.
> It is the time to take what has already been staged and get that code
> merged.
> 
> Eric
> 

	Cyrill