[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130804144847.GB18906@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 16:48:47 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Zach Levis <zml@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] exec: move allow_write_access/fput to exec_binprm()
On 08/03, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > @@ -1455,6 +1451,11 @@ static int exec_binprm(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> > ptrace_event(PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC, old_vpid);
> > current->did_exec = 1;
> > proc_exec_connector(current);
> > +
> > + if (bprm->file) {
> > + allow_write_access(bprm->file);
> > + fput(bprm->file);
> > + }
>
> Why not keep the bprm->file = NULL assignment?
Because it is no longer needed.
And now that we have the non-recursive exec_binprm() called right
before free_bprm() it is obvious that it won't be used again.
> Seems reasonable to
> keep that just to be avoid use-after-free accidents.
OK. I will add it back. With the comment to explain that this is
only to catch the possible problems.
I guess it would be better if I resend the whole series to avoid
the confusion. I am going to add your acks. It seems that you acked
everything except 1/3 in the previous series, perhaps you can ack
it too?
Thanks for review!
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