From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Zach Levis <zml@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@ioremap.net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/5] exec: kill ->load_binary != NULL check in search_binary_handler()
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:27:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130802192736.GA9568@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130802192713.GA9543@redhat.com>
search_binary_handler() checks ->load_binary != NULL for no reason,
this method should be always defined. Turn this check into WARN_ON()
and move it into __register_binfmt().
Also, kill the function pointer. The current code looks confusing,
as if ->load_binary can go away after read_unlock(&binfmt_lock).
But we rely on module_get(fmt->module), this fmt can't be changed
or unregistered, otherwise this code is buggy anyway.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
---
fs/exec.c | 7 +++----
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
index ef70320..9f41e7d 100644
--- a/fs/exec.c
+++ b/fs/exec.c
@@ -74,6 +74,8 @@ static DEFINE_RWLOCK(binfmt_lock);
void __register_binfmt(struct linux_binfmt * fmt, int insert)
{
BUG_ON(!fmt);
+ if (WARN_ON(!fmt->load_binary))
+ return;
write_lock(&binfmt_lock);
insert ? list_add(&fmt->lh, &formats) :
list_add_tail(&fmt->lh, &formats);
@@ -1389,14 +1391,11 @@ int search_binary_handler(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
for (try=0; try<2; try++) {
read_lock(&binfmt_lock);
list_for_each_entry(fmt, &formats, lh) {
- int (*fn)(struct linux_binprm *) = fmt->load_binary;
- if (!fn)
- continue;
if (!try_module_get(fmt->module))
continue;
read_unlock(&binfmt_lock);
bprm->recursion_depth++;
- retval = fn(bprm);
+ retval = fmt->load_binary(bprm);
bprm->recursion_depth--;
if (retval >= 0) {
put_binfmt(fmt);
--
1.5.5.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-02 19:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-02 19:27 [PATCH 0/5] exec: more cleanups Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-02 19:27 ` [PATCH 1/5] exec: move allow_write_access/fput to exec_binprm() Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-03 19:27 ` Kees Cook
2013-08-04 14:48 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-02 19:27 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2013-08-02 19:27 ` [PATCH 3/5] exec: cleanup the CONFIG_MODULES logic Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-02 19:27 ` [PATCH 4/5] exec: don't retry if request_module() fails Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-02 19:27 ` [PATCH 5/5] exec: cleanup the error handling in search_binary_handler() Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-03 19:28 ` [PATCH 0/5] exec: more cleanups Kees Cook
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=20130802192736.GA9568@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--cc=zbr@ioremap.net \
--cc=zml@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox