[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130802192741.GA9579@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:27:41 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Zach Levis <zml@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 4/5] exec: don't retry if request_module() fails
A separate one-liner for better documentation.
It doesn't make sense to retry if request_module() fails to exec
/sbin/modprobe, add the addition "request_module() < 0" check.
However, this logic still doesn't look exactly right:
1. It would be better to check "request_module() != 0", the user
space modprobe process should report the correct exit code.
But I didn't dare to add the user-visible change.
2. The whole ENOEXEC logic looks suboptimal. Suppose that we try
to exec a "#!path-to-unsupported-binary" script. In this case
request_module() + "retry" will be done twice: first by the
"depth == 1" code, and then again by the "depth == 0" caller
which doesn't make sense.
3. And note that in the case above bprm->buf was already changed
by load_script()->prepare_binprm(), so this looks even more
ugly.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
---
fs/exec.c | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
index 48344a2..d9fd32c 100644
--- a/fs/exec.c
+++ b/fs/exec.c
@@ -1418,7 +1418,8 @@ int search_binary_handler(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
if (printable(bprm->buf[0]) && printable(bprm->buf[1]) &&
printable(bprm->buf[2]) && printable(bprm->buf[3]))
return retval;
- request_module("binfmt-%04x", *(ushort *)(bprm->buf + 2));
+ if (request_module("binfmt-%04x", *(ushort *)(bprm->buf + 2)) < 0)
+ return retval;
need_retry = false;
goto retry;
}
--
1.5.5.1
--
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