[PATCH 5/5] exec: cleanup the error handling in search_binary_handler()

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

The error hanling and ret-from-loop look confusing and inconsistent.

- "retval >= 0" simply returns

- "!bprm->file" returns too but with read_unlock() because
   binfmt_lock was already re-acquired

- "retval != -ENOEXEC || bprm->mm == NULL" does "break" and
  relies on the same check after the main loop

Consolidate these checks into a single if/return statement.

need_retry still checks "retval == -ENOEXEC", but this and -ENOENT
before the main loop are not needed. This is only for pathological
and impossible list_empty(&formats) case.

It is not clear why do we check "bprm->mm == NULL", probably this
should be removed.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
---
 fs/exec.c |   11 +++--------
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
index d9fd32c..7ab2120 100644
--- a/fs/exec.c
+++ b/fs/exec.c
@@ -1399,22 +1399,17 @@ int search_binary_handler(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
 		bprm->recursion_depth++;
 		retval = fmt->load_binary(bprm);
 		bprm->recursion_depth--;
-		if (retval >= 0) {
+		if (retval >= 0 || retval != -ENOEXEC ||
+		    bprm->mm == NULL || bprm->file == NULL) {
 			put_binfmt(fmt);
 			return retval;
 		}
 		read_lock(&binfmt_lock);
 		put_binfmt(fmt);
-		if (retval != -ENOEXEC || bprm->mm == NULL)
-			break;
-		if (!bprm->file) {
-			read_unlock(&binfmt_lock);
-			return retval;
-		}
 	}
 	read_unlock(&binfmt_lock);
 
-	if (need_retry && retval == -ENOEXEC && bprm->mm) {
+	if (need_retry && retval == -ENOEXEC) {
 		if (printable(bprm->buf[0]) && printable(bprm->buf[1]) &&
 		    printable(bprm->buf[2]) && printable(bprm->buf[3]))
 			return retval;
-- 
1.5.5.1