[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1254741372.26976.35.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:16:12 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Anirban Sinha <ani@...rban.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>,
Kaz Kylheku <kaz@...gmasystems.com>,
Anirban Sinha <asinha@...gmasystems.com>
Subject: Re: futex question
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 12:56 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Looking more into that I think we should check whether the robust list
> has an entry (lock held) in do_execve() and return -EWOULDBLOCK to
> luser space. Same if pi_waiters is not empty. Holding a lock and
> calling execve() is simply broken.
Fine by me ;-)
something like the below?
The question is of course what Ani was doing that triggered this in the
first place and if he can live with this.. :-)
---
fs/exec.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
index d49be6b..0812ba6 100644
--- a/fs/exec.c
+++ b/fs/exec.c
@@ -1295,6 +1295,22 @@ int do_execve(char * filename,
bool clear_in_exec;
int retval;
+ retval = -EWOULDBLOCK;
+#ifdef CONFIG_FUTEX
+ if (unlikely(current->robust_list))
+ goto out_ret;
+#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
+ if (unlikely(current->compat_robust_list))
+ goto out_ret;
+#endif
+ spin_lock_irq(¤t->pi_lock);
+ if (!list_empty(¤t->pi_state_list)) {
+ spin_unlock_irq(¤t->pi_lock);
+ goto out_ret;
+ }
+ spin_unlock_irq(¤t->pi_lock);
+#endif
+
retval = unshare_files(&displaced);
if (retval)
goto out_ret;
--
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