linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] exec: Moving unshare_files

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: <87o9cuh2k2.fsf@xmission.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:18:53 +0200
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        berrange@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] exec: Moving unshare_files_struct

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:

> On 09/16, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Oleg's patch to remove get_files_struct from proc means we don't need
>> two counts in files_struct.
>
> So it seems you agree with this patch at least in general.

I do I think in the context we are looking at things finding a way not
to need to bump files_struct->count looks like it will simplify a lot of
things and there are not many cases we need to consider.

I have been thorough and mentioned the binder case and other case but
that isn't because I disagree I simply don't want us to overlook weird
or tricky cases.

It appears that the more often that we look at these bits the better
a solution we wind up writing.

> OK, if nobody else objects I'll split this patch and send the series
> tomorrow.

No objection from me.

>> Eric W. Biederman (3):
>>       exec: Move unshare_files down to avoid locks being dropped on exec.
>>       exec: Simplify unshare_files
>>       exec: Remove reset_files_struct
>
> Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>

Eric