[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100131155000.GB13402@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:50:01 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
jmoskovc@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com, drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, t.sailer@...mni.ethz.ch, abelay@....edu,
gregkh@...e.de, spock@...too.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
neilb@...e.de, mfasheh@...e.com, menage@...gle.com,
shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, takedakn@...data.co.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] exec: allow core_pipe recursion check to look for
a value of 1 rather than 0 (v2)
On 01/29, Neil Horman wrote:
>
> void do_coredump(long signr, int exit_code, struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> ...
> - if (call_usermodehelper_pipe(helper_argv[0], helper_argv, NULL,
> - &cprm.file)) {
> + cprm.file = NULL;
it is already NULL,
> + if (call_usermodehelper_fns(helper_argv[0], helper_argv, NULL,
> + UMH_WAIT_EXEC, umh_pipe_setup,
> + NULL, &cprm)) {
> + if (cprm.file)
> + filp_close(cprm.file, NULL);
Hmm. Looks like this change fixes the bug by accident.
Before this patch, I think we leak info->stdin if kernel_thread() fails
in __call_usermodehelper() pathes.
Completely off-topic, but I think __call_usermodehelper(UMH_NO_WAIT) is
buggy. if kernel_thread() failes it should do call_usermodehelper_freeinfo().
Also, UMH_WAIT_EXEC should set ->retval in this case.
Cough. And why call_usermodehelper_exec() has this strange ->path[0] == '\0'
check?
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