Message-ID: <AM6PR03MB5170CFC06260511B79C81E71E4C20@AM6PR03MB5170.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Apr 2020 08:41:30 +0200
From:   Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull proc and exec work for 5.7-rc1


On 4/4/20 7:48 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/4/20 7:43 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/3/20 6:23 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:09 AM Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/2/20 9:04 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>>> In fact, then you could drop the
>>>>>
>>>>>                         mutex_unlock(&tsk->signal->exec_update_mutex);
>>>>>
>>>>> in the error case of exec_mmap(), because now the error handling in
>>>>> free_bprm() would do the cleanup automatically.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The error handling is sometimes called when the exec_update_mutex is
>>>> not taken, in fact even de_thread not called.
>>>
>>> But that's the whole point of the flag. Make the flag be about "do I
>>> hold the mutex", and then the error handling does the right thing
>>> regardless.
>>>
>>>> Can you say how you would suggest that to be done?
>>>
>>> I think the easiest thing to do to explain is to just write the patch.
>>>
>>> This is entirely untested, but see what the difference is? I make the
>>> flag be about exactly where I take the lock, not about some "I have
>>> called exec_mmap".
>>>
>>> Which means that now exec_mmap() doesn't even need to unlock it in the
>>> error case, because the unlocking will happen properly in the
>>> bprm_exit regardless.
>>>
>>> This makes that unconditional unlocking logic much more obvious.
>>>
>>> That said, Eric says he can make it all properly static so that it
>>> doesn't need that kind of dynamic "if (x) unlock()" logic at all,
>>> which is much better.
>>>
>>> So this patch is not for consumption, it's purely for "look, something
>>> like this"
>>>
>>
>>
>> Just one suggestion, in general It would feel pretty much okay if you
>> like to improve the naming, and the consistency in any of my patches.
>>

I mean it, I could not imagine a greater honor, than You improving
one of my patches.

Just please consider what I said below before you do it.


Thanks
Bernd.

>>> @@ -1067,7 +1069,6 @@ static int exec_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>>  		down_read(&old_mm->mmap_sem);
>>>  		if (unlikely(old_mm->core_state)) {
>>>  			up_read(&old_mm->mmap_sem);
>>> -			mutex_unlock(&tsk->signal->exec_update_mutex);
>>
>> I was trying to replicate the behavior of prepare_bprm_creds
>> which also unlocks the mutex in the error case, therefore it felt
>> okay to unlock the mutex here, but it will work either way.
>>
>> I should further note, that the mutex would be locked if this
>> error exit is taken, and unlocked if this error happens:
>>
>>         ret = mutex_lock_killable(&tsk->signal->exec_update_mutex);
>>         if (ret)
>>                 return ret;
>>
>> so at least the function comment I introduced above should be updated:
>>  * Maps the mm_struct mm into the current task struct.
>>  * On success, this function returns with the mutex
>>  * exec_update_mutex locked.
>>
>>
>>>  		put_binfmt(fmt);
>>> -		if (retval < 0 && bprm->called_exec_mmap) {
>>> +		if (retval < 0 && !bprm->mm) {
>>
>> Using bprm->mm like this feels like a hack to me.  It works here,
>> but nowhere else.  Therefore I changed this line.
>>
>> Using !bprm->mm in the error handling code made Eric's patch fail.
>>
> 
> That does probably work better it the boolean is named
> after_the_point_of_no_return or something....
> 
> 
>>
>> Thanks
>> Bernd.
>>
>>
>>>               Linus
>>>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists