public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 4/5] exec: don't retry if request_module() fails
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:27:41 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130802192741.GA9579@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130802192713.GA9543@redhat.com>

A separate one-liner for better documentation.

It doesn't make sense to retry if request_module() fails to exec
/sbin/modprobe, add the addition "request_module() < 0" check.

However, this logic still doesn't look exactly right:

1. It would be better to check "request_module() != 0", the user
   space modprobe process should report the correct exit code.
   But I didn't dare to add the user-visible change.

2. The whole ENOEXEC logic looks suboptimal. Suppose that we try
   to exec a "#!path-to-unsupported-binary" script. In this case
   request_module() + "retry" will be done twice: first by the
   "depth == 1" code, and then again by the "depth == 0" caller
   which doesn't make sense.

3. And note that in the case above bprm->buf was already changed
   by load_script()->prepare_binprm(), so this looks even more
   ugly.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
---
 fs/exec.c |    3 ++-
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
index 48344a2..d9fd32c 100644
--- a/fs/exec.c
+++ b/fs/exec.c
@@ -1418,7 +1418,8 @@ int search_binary_handler(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
 		if (printable(bprm->buf[0]) && printable(bprm->buf[1]) &&
 		    printable(bprm->buf[2]) && printable(bprm->buf[3]))
 			return retval;
-		request_module("binfmt-%04x", *(ushort *)(bprm->buf + 2));
+		if (request_module("binfmt-%04x", *(ushort *)(bprm->buf + 2)) < 0)
+			return retval;
 		need_retry = false;
 		goto retry;
 	}
-- 
1.5.5.1


  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 ` [PATCH 2/5] exec: kill ->load_binary != NULL check in search_binary_handler() Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-02 19:27 ` [PATCH 3/5] exec: cleanup the CONFIG_MODULES logic Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-02 19:27 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
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=20130802192741.GA9579@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