[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090331061953.GT28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 07:19:53 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Joe Malicki <jmalicki@...acarta.com>,
Michael Itz <mitz@...acarta.com>,
Kenneth Baker <bakerk@...acarta.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: check_unsafe_exec() races (Was: [PATCH 2/4] fix setuid
sometimes doesn't)
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 06:45:39PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> (note exactly *meaningful* review, but)
>
> exit_fs() and daemonize_fs_struct() do:
>
> if (--fs->users)
> fs = NULL;
> write_unlock(&fs->lock);
>
> Moving the write_unlock up actually let's the kernel boot and
> start running ltp.
Correct fix is
kill = !--fs->users;
write_unlock(&fs->lock);
...
if (kill)
free_fs_struct(fs);
and similar in other places with the same idiocy (one of which forgets to
unlock, on top of everything else).
Anyway, hopefully much saner (== looked through after getting some sleep,
as opposed to "what I've got in that branch at ~26 hours of uptime")
variant is in the same repository, same branch.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists