[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120313160044.GF1912@moon>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:00:44 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] c/r: prctl: Add ability to set new mm_struct::exe_file v3
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 04:43:37PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * For security reason changing mm->exe_file
> > + * is one-shot action.
> > + */
> > + down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > + if (likely(!mm->exe_file))
>
> This means that the num_exe_file_vmas check at the start is not needed.
> If you want it as a "fast-path" check, please fix the comment. Or just
> remove it. Otherwise the code looks as if we have to check them both.
Yes, I wanted a fast test first, while the second test will give
one-shot condition and the second attempt to setup new exe_file
will fail. OK, I'll update the comment block.
>
> Matt, is it really possible to hit mm->exe_file = NULL in
> removed_exe_file_vma ? Unless I missed something, this check just
> hides the potentional problem, no?
>
> IOW, shouldn't it do
>
> void removed_exe_file_vma(struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> WARN_ON(!mm->exe_file);
> WARN_ON(mm->num_exe_file_vmas <= 0);
>
I guess if num_exe_file_vmas < 1 here we've a bug somewhere
and should not decrement the counter at all.
Cyrill
--
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