[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090401030339.GX28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 04:03:39 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.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 Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 03:38:49AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 01:28:01AM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Minor bisectability issue: the third patch, which introduces
> > int unshare_fs_struct(void), needs to return 0 when it succeeds:
> > that gets corrected in the fourth patch.
>
> ACK.
>
> > Lockdep objects to how check_unsafe_exec nests write_lock(&p->fs_lock)
> > inside lock_task_sighand(p, &flags). It's right: we sometimes take
> > sighand->siglock in interrupt, so if such an interrupt occurred just
> > after you take fs_lock elsewhere, that could deadlock with this. It
> > seems happy with taking fs_lock just outside the lock_task_sighand.
>
> Right you are, check_unsafe_exec() reordered. Will push in a few.
Rebased and pushed (same tree, same branch; included into for-next, along
with related cleanups).
--
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