[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200407161706.l5zfgghwr3p4vz2c@wittgenstein>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 18:17:06 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] exec: Make unlocking exec_update_mutex explict
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:31:52PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> With install_exec_creds updated to follow immediately after
> setup_new_exec, the failure of unshare_sighand is the only
> code path where exec_update_mutex is held but not explicitly
> unlocked.
>
> Update that code path to explicitly unlock exec_update_mutex.
>
> Remove the unlocking of exec_update_mutex from free_bprm.
>
> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Yeah, assuming that I didn't miss any subtleties just now.
By "explicit" I assume you mean not conditionally unlocked, i.e. we
don't need to check any condition in free_binprm().
Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists