linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] exec: introduce exec

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKRgbZ7safrJjmSQc3dHsMEqnE7KGptQ0kPtesbV2kz3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 4 Aug 2013 10:13:03 -0700
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
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 1/3] exec: introduce exec_binprm() for "depth == 0" code

On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 08/03, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > +static int exec_binprm(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>> > +{
>> > +       pid_t old_pid, old_vpid;
>> > +       int ret;
>> > +
>> > +       /* Need to fetch pid before load_binary changes it */
>> > +       old_pid = current->pid;
>> > +       rcu_read_lock();
>> > +       old_vpid = task_pid_nr_ns(current, task_active_pid_ns(current->parent));
>> > +       rcu_read_unlock();
>> > +
>> > +       ret = search_binary_handler(bprm);
>> > +       if (ret >= 0) {
>> > +               trace_sched_process_exec(current, old_pid, bprm);
>> > +               ptrace_event(PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC, old_vpid);
>> > +               current->did_exec = 1;
>> > +       }
>>
>> Cleanup looks good. One idea here, though: this could be made more
>> pretty by doing:
>>
>> if (ret < 0)
>>     return ret;
>>
>> to avoid the indentation for the "expected" code path.
>
> Well, I do not reallt mind. But this "if" block is simple and small,
> we do we need another "return" ?
>
> To me the code looks more readable this way, but I can redo/resend.

Cool, that's fine how it is. It was just a style suggestion. :)

Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

Thanks!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/