linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] Split wait_noreap

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8763fuwmk6.wl%vmayatsk@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 May 2009 16:35:53 +0200
From:	Vitaly Mayatskikh <v.mayatskih@...il.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Vitaly Mayatskikh <v.mayatskih@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Split wait_noreap_copyout()

At Thu, 21 May 2009 16:12:50 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> Roland thinks that "-EFAULT -> success" change is acceptable, and I think
> the same. So, to me the best option is just  change the changelog of this
> patch and that is all.
> 
> Or. We can make a trivial patch which adds the behavior change first:
> 
> 	Changelog: always accept the NULL infop, because it is not
> 	possible to understand the current behaviour ;)
> 
> 	User-visible change! needs Acks!
> 
> 	--- a/kernel/exit.c
> 	+++ b/kernel/exit.c
> 	@@ -1126,24 +1126,26 @@ static int eligible_child(struct wait_op
> 	 static int wait_noreap_copyout(struct wait_opts *wo, struct task_struct *p,
> 					pid_t pid, uid_t uid, int why, int status)
> 	 {
> 	-	struct siginfo __user *infop;
> 		int retval = wo->wo_rusage
> 			? getrusage(p, RUSAGE_BOTH, wo->wo_rusage) : 0;
> 	-
> 		put_task_struct(p);
> 	-	infop = wo->wo_info;
> 	-	if (!retval)
> 	-		retval = put_user(SIGCHLD, &infop->si_signo);
> 	-	if (!retval)
> 	-		retval = put_user(0, &infop->si_errno);
> 	-	if (!retval)
> 	-		retval = put_user((short)why, &infop->si_code);
> 	-	if (!retval)
> 	-		retval = put_user(pid, &infop->si_pid);
> 	-	if (!retval)
> 	-		retval = put_user(uid, &infop->si_uid);
> 	-	if (!retval)
> 	-		retval = put_user(status, &infop->si_status);
> 	+
> 	+	if (wo->wo_info) {
> 	+		struct siginfo __user *infop = wo->wo_info;
> 	+
> 	+		if (!retval)
> 	+			retval = put_user(SIGCHLD, &infop->si_signo);
> 	+		if (!retval)
> 	+			retval = put_user(0, &infop->si_errno);
> 	+		if (!retval)
> 	+			retval = put_user((short)why, &infop->si_code);
> 	+		if (!retval)
> 	+			retval = put_user(pid, &infop->si_pid);
> 	+		if (!retval)
> 	+			retval = put_user(uid, &infop->si_uid);
> 	+		if (!retval)
> 	+			retval = put_user(status, &infop->si_status);
> 	+	}
> 		if (!retval)
> 			retval = pid;
> 		return retval;
> 
> And then redo Vitaly's patches on top of this change.
> 
> What do you and Vitaly think?

I like your idea.

-- 
wbr, Vitaly
--
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/