+2
−0
Loading
Gitlab 现已全面支持 git over ssh 与 git over https。通过 HTTPS 访问请配置带有 read_repository / write_repository 权限的 Personal access token。通过 SSH 端口访问请使用 22 端口或 13389 端口。如果使用CAS注册了账户但不知道密码,可以自行至设置中更改;如有其他问题,请发邮件至 service@cra.moe 寻求协助。
I found that all of 2.4 and 2.6 have been letting mprotect give write permission to a readonly attachment of shared memory, whether or not IPC would give the caller that permission. SUS says "The behaviour of this function [mprotect] is unspecified if the mapping was not established by a call to mmap", but I don't think we can interpret that as allowing it to subvert IPC permissions. I haven't tried 2.2, but the 2.2.26 source looks like it gets it right; and the patch below reproduces that behaviour - mprotect cannot be used to add write permission to a shared memory segment attached readonly. This patch is simple, and I'm sure it's what we should have done in 2.4.0: if you want to go on to switch write permission on and off with mprotect, just don't attach the segment readonly in the first place. However, we could have accumulated apps which attach readonly (even though they would be permitted to attach read/write), and which subsequently use mprotect to switch write permission on and off: it's not unreasonable. I was going to add a second ipcperms check in do_shmat, to check for writable when readonly, and if not writable find_vma and clear VM_MAYWRITE. But security_ipc_permission might do auditing, and it seems wrong to report an attempt for write permission when there has been none. Or we could flag the vma as SHM, note the shmid or shp in vm_private_data, and then get mprotect to check. But the patch below is a lot simpler: I'd rather stick with it, if we can convince ourselves somehow that it'll be safe. Signed-off-by:Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> Signed-off-by:
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by:
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
CRA Git | Maintained and supported by SUSTech CRA and CCSE