linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] check_unsafe_exec: use while_each_thread() rather than next

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

Message-ID: <528FBF4F.8090503@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:32:15 -0500
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	oleg@...hat.com
CC:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, keescook@...omium.org, mhocko@...e.cz,
	snanda@...omium.org, dserrg@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] check_unsafe_exec: use while_each_thread() rather
 than next_thread()

(11/22/2013 3:24 PM), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/22, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>
>> (11/22/2013 12:54 PM), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> next_thread() should be avoided, change check_unsafe_exec()
>>> to use while_each_thread(). This also saves 32 bytes.
>>
>> Just curious.
>> Why it should be avoided? Just for cleaner code?
> 
> Nobody except signal->curr_target actually need next_thread-like
> code, and
> 
>> Or is there
>> serious issue?
> 
> We need to change (fix) this interface. This particular code is
> fine, p == current. But in general the code like this can loop
> forever if p exits and next_thread(t) can't reach the unhashed
> thread.

That's enough and good reason.

Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>

--
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/