[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87lfegcjxm.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 09:21:57 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: Move io_uring_task_cancel after the point of no return
ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
> Now that unshare_files happens in begin_new_exec after the point of no
> return, io_uring_task_cancel can also happen later.
>
> Effectively this means io_uring activities for a task are only canceled
> when exec succeeds.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
> ---
>
> This is against my exec-for-v5.11 branch
applied.
> fs/exec.c | 10 +++++-----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> index 14fae2ec1c9d..9e9368603168 100644
> --- a/fs/exec.c
> +++ b/fs/exec.c
> @@ -1257,6 +1257,11 @@ int begin_new_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm)
> if (retval)
> goto out;
>
> + /*
> + * Cancel any io_uring activity across execve
> + */
> + io_uring_task_cancel();
> +
> /* Ensure the files table is not shared. */
> retval = unshare_files();
> if (retval)
> @@ -1783,11 +1788,6 @@ static int bprm_execve(struct linux_binprm *bprm,
> struct file *file;
> int retval;
>
> - /*
> - * Cancel any io_uring activity across execve
> - */
> - io_uring_task_cancel();
> -
> retval = prepare_bprm_creds(bprm);
> if (retval)
> return retval;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists