[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090506235349.GC3756@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 01:53:49 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3a] ptrace: add _ptrace_may_access()
On 05/06, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > + task_lock(task);
> > retval = __ptrace_may_access(task, PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH);
> > + task_unlock(task);
> > if (retval)
> > - goto bad;
> > + goto unlock_creds;
>
> Hm, that's a bit ugly - why dont you reuse ptrace_may_access(),
> which does much of this already?
Indeed, even the changelog mentions this.
I was going to cleanup this later. Because I think that
__ptrace_may_access() should die. It has only one caller, mm_for_maps().
I will re-check, but it looks a bit strange. More precisely, I just
can't understand it. Why we can't just do
struct mm_struct *mm_for_maps(struct task_struct *task)
{
struct mm_struct *mm = get_task_mm(task);
if (mm && mm != current->mm && !ptrace_may_access()) {
mmput(mm);
mm = NULL;
}
return mm;
}
? We do not care if this task exits and clears ->mm right before
or after ptrace_may_access(), and this is possible eith the current
code too once it drops tasklist.
Oleg.
--
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