[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160929160901.GB30031@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:09:01 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>
Cc: security@...nel.org, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Nick Kralevich <nnk@...gle.com>,
Janis Danisevskis <jdanis@...gle.com>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] fs/exec: don't force writing memory access
On 09/29, Jann Horn wrote:
>
> @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ static struct page *get_arg_page(struct linux_binprm *bprm, unsigned long pos,
> * doing the exec and bprm->mm is the new process's mm.
> */
> ret = get_user_pages_remote(current, bprm->mm, pos, 1, write,
> - 1, &page, NULL);
> + 0, &page, NULL);
To me this looks like a reasonable cleanup regardless, FOLL_FORCE
just adds the unnecessary confusion here.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists