From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: oleg@redhat.com
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, keescook@chromium.org, mhocko@suse.cz,
snanda@chromium.org, dserrg@gmail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] check_unsafe_exec: use while_each_thread() rather than next_thread()
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:32:15 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <528FBF4F.8090503@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131122202412.GA19563@redhat.com>
(11/22/2013 3:24 PM), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/22, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>
>> (11/22/2013 12:54 PM), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> next_thread() should be avoided, change check_unsafe_exec()
>>> to use while_each_thread(). This also saves 32 bytes.
>>
>> Just curious.
>> Why it should be avoided? Just for cleaner code?
>
> Nobody except signal->curr_target actually need next_thread-like
> code, and
>
>> Or is there
>> serious issue?
>
> We need to change (fix) this interface. This particular code is
> fine, p == current. But in general the code like this can loop
> forever if p exits and next_thread(t) can't reach the unhashed
> thread.
That's enough and good reason.
Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-22 20:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-22 17:54 [PATCH 0/4] in_exec/etc cleanups Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-22 17:54 ` [PATCH 1/4] check_unsafe_exec: use while_each_thread() rather than next_thread() Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-22 19:42 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-11-22 20:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-22 20:32 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2013-11-22 17:54 ` [PATCH 2/4] check_unsafe_exec: kill the dead -EAGAIN and clear_in_exec logic Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-22 20:27 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-11-22 20:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-22 21:00 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-11-23 15:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-22 17:54 ` [PATCH 3/4] exec: move the final allow_write_access/fput into free_bprm() Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-22 20:29 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-11-23 19:22 ` Kees Cook
2013-11-22 17:54 ` [PATCH 4/4] kill task_struct->did_exec Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-22 19:46 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-11-22 20:33 ` [PATCH v2 " Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-22 20:33 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=528FBF4F.8090503@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dserrg@gmail.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=snanda@chromium.org \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.