lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Further shmctl() SHM_LOCK strangeness
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
> While studying the RLIMIT_MEMLOCK stuff further, I came
> up with another observation: a process can perform a
> shmctl(SHM_LOCK) on *any* System V shared memory segment,
> regardles of the segment's ownership or permissions,
> providing the size of the segment falls within the
> process's RLIMIT_MEMLOCK limit.

That's a very good observation.

I think it's unintended, but I'm not sure.
I've forgotten what can_do_mlock on shm was about.

Offhand I find it hard to grasp whether it's harmless or bad,
but inclined to think bad - if there happen to be lots of small
enough shared memory segments on the system, a series of processes
run by one unprivileged user can lock down lots of memory?

Isn't it further the case that any process can now SHM_UNLOCK
any segment? That would surely be wrong.

I've added Rik and Chris to the CC list, they seem to be the
main can_do_mlock guys, hope they can answer.

Hugh

> Is this intended behaviour? For most other System V IPC
> "ctl" operations the process must either:
>
> 1. be the owner of the object or have an appropriate
> capability, or
>
> 2. have suitable permissions on the object.
>
> Which of these two conditions applies depends on the
> "ctl" operation.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:0.065 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site