[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AM6PR03MB5170051D0E2FF2B6772189F6E4FE0@AM6PR03MB5170.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 19:27:06 +0000
From: Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
James Morris <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Christian Kellner <christian@...lner.me>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] exec: Only compute current once in flush_old_exec
On 3/9/20 6:56 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 3/9/20 6:34 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de> writes:
>>
>>> On 3/8/20 10:35 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Make it clear that current only needs to be computed once in
>>>> flush_old_exec. This may have some efficiency improvements and it
>>>> makes the code easier to change.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/exec.c | 9 +++++----
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
>>>> index db17be51b112..c3f34791f2f0 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/exec.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/exec.c
>>>> @@ -1260,13 +1260,14 @@ void __set_task_comm(struct task_struct *tsk, const char *buf, bool exec)
>>>> */
>>>> int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm)
>>>> {
>>>> + struct task_struct *me = current;
>>>> int retval;
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> * Make sure we have a private signal table and that
>>>> * we are unassociated from the previous thread group.
>>>> */
>>>> - retval = de_thread(current);
>>>> + retval = de_thread(me);
>>>> if (retval)
>>>> goto out;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -1294,10 +1295,10 @@ int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm)
>>>> bprm->mm = NULL;
>>>>
>>>> set_fs(USER_DS);
>>>> - current->flags &= ~(PF_RANDOMIZE | PF_FORKNOEXEC | PF_KTHREAD |
>>>> + me->flags &= ~(PF_RANDOMIZE | PF_FORKNOEXEC | PF_KTHREAD |
>>>> PF_NOFREEZE | PF_NO_SETAFFINITY);
>>>
>>> I wonder if this line should be aligned with the previous?
>>
>> In this case I don't think so. The style used for second line is indent
>> with tabs as much as possible to the right. I haven't changed that.
>>
>> Further mixing a change in indentation style with just a variable rename
>> will make the patch confusing to read because two things have to be
>> verified at the same time.
>>
>> So while I see why you ask I think this bit needs to stay as is.
>>
>
> Ah, okay, I see.
> Thanks for explaining this rule, I was not aware of it,
> but I am still new here :)
>
Reviewed-by: Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>
Bernd.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists