[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091005111933.GA25889@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:19:33 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Anirban Sinha <ani@...rban.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>,
Kaz Kylheku <kaz@...gmasystems.com>,
Anirban Sinha <asinha@...gmasystems.com>
Subject: Re: futex question
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> 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
i suspect this should have the form of:
retval = can_exec_robust_futexes();
if (retval)
goto out_ret
retval = unshare_files(&displaced);
if (retval)
goto out_ret;
...
but ... shouldnt we just do what exec normally does and zap any state
that shouldnt be carried over into the new context - instead of denying
the exec? Am i missing something?
Ingo
--
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