Re: [patch 5/9] unprivileged mounts: allow unprivileged bind mounts | |
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] | |
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:35 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> @@ -510,10 +533,16 @@ static struct vfsmount *clone_mnt(struct
> int flag)
> {
> struct super_block *sb = old->mnt_sb;
> - struct vfsmount *mnt = alloc_vfsmnt(old->mnt_devname);
> + struct vfsmount *mnt;
>
> + if (flag & CL_SETUSER) {
> + int err = reserve_user_mount();
> + if (err)
> + return ERR_PTR(err);
> + }
> + mnt = alloc_vfsmnt(old->mnt_devname);
> if (!mnt)
> - return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> + goto alloc_failed;
>
> mnt->mnt_flags = old->mnt_flags;
> atomic_inc(&sb->s_active);
I think there's a little race here. We could have several users racing
to get to this point when nr_user_mounts==max_user_mounts-1. One user
wins the race and gets their mount reserved. The others get the error
out of reserve_user_mount(), and return.
But, the winner goes on to error out on some condition further down in
clone_mnt() and never actually instantiates the mount.
Do you think this is a problem?
I think just about the one solution is to block new mounters on a
sleepable lock until the race winner actually finishes their mount
operation.
-- Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux-ng" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Site Home] [Netdev] [Ethernet Bridging] [Linux Wireless] [Kernel Newbies] [Memory] [Security] [Linux for Hams] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Rubini] [Photo] [Yosemite] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux RAID] [Linux Admin] [Samba] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux Resources]