# Re: \[RFC v5 1/1\] ns: add binfmt\_misc to the user namespace

- From: Aleksa Sarai \<hidden\>
- Date: 2018-10-10 14:34:08 
- List: linux-api
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2018/10/144007
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2018/10/144255/t.md

```text
On 2018-10-09, Laurent Vivier [ref] wrote:
> Le 09/10/2018 à 17:16, Tycho Andersen a écrit :
> > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 12:37:52PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> >> @@ -80,18 +74,32 @@ static int entry_count;
> >>   */
> >>  #define MAX_REGISTER_LENGTH 1920
> >>  
> >> +static struct binfmt_namespace *binfmt_ns(struct user_namespace *ns)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct binfmt_namespace *b_ns;
> >> +
> >> +	while (ns) {
> >> +		b_ns = READ_ONCE(ns->binfmt_ns);
> >> +		if (b_ns)
> >> +			return b_ns;
> >> +		ns = ns->parent;
> >> +	}
> >> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> > 
> > It looks like we warn here,
> > 
> >> @@ -133,17 +141,18 @@ static int load_misc_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> >>  	struct file *interp_file = NULL;
> >>  	int retval;
> >>  	int fd_binary = -1;
> >> +	struct binfmt_namespace *ns = binfmt_ns(current_user_ns());
> >>  
> >>  	retval = -ENOEXEC;
> >> -	if (!enabled)
> >> +	if (!ns->enabled)
> > 
> > ...but then in cases like this we immediately dereference the pointer
> > anyways and crash. Can we return some other error code here in the !ns
> > case so we don't crash?
> 
> My concern here is I don't want to add code to check an error case that
> cannot happen. The first namespace binfmt_ns pointer is initialized with
> &init_binfmt_ns, so the return value cannot be NULL.

I'd argue that BUG() is a better thing to do then -- if doing a dummy
error path makes no sense. Though IIRC BUG() is no longer a popular
thing to do.

-- 
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>
```

## Attachments

- [signature.asc](https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2018/10/144007/attachment/0) (application/pgp-signature, 833 bytes)