From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Zach Levis <zml@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@ioremap.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] exec: introduce exec_binprm() for "depth == 0" code
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 16:35:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130804143527.GA18906@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jK+8xKW3Hbzg7g7o2c3G4aWrT4Y4UBCBmaM74cUPMYnQA@mail.gmail.com>
On 08/03, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > +static int exec_binprm(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> > +{
> > + pid_t old_pid, old_vpid;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + /* Need to fetch pid before load_binary changes it */
> > + old_pid = current->pid;
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + old_vpid = task_pid_nr_ns(current, task_active_pid_ns(current->parent));
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > +
> > + ret = search_binary_handler(bprm);
> > + if (ret >= 0) {
> > + trace_sched_process_exec(current, old_pid, bprm);
> > + ptrace_event(PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC, old_vpid);
> > + current->did_exec = 1;
> > + }
>
> Cleanup looks good. One idea here, though: this could be made more
> pretty by doing:
>
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
>
> to avoid the indentation for the "expected" code path.
Well, I do not reallt mind. But this "if" block is simple and small,
we do we need another "return" ?
To me the code looks more readable this way, but I can redo/resend.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-04 14:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-01 19:04 [PATCH 0/3] exec: minor cleanups + minor fix Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-01 19:05 ` [PATCH 1/3] exec: introduce exec_binprm() for "depth == 0" code Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-03 19:05 ` Kees Cook
2013-08-04 14:35 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2013-08-04 17:13 ` Kees Cook
2013-08-01 19:05 ` [PATCH 2/3] exec: kill "int depth" in search_binary_handler() Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-03 18:28 ` Kees Cook
2013-08-03 18:55 ` [PATCH v2 " Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-03 19:31 ` Kees Cook
2013-08-01 19:05 ` [PATCH 3/3] exec: proc_exec_connector() should be called only once Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-03 19:10 ` Kees Cook
2013-08-02 14:09 ` [PATCH 0/3] exec: minor cleanups + minor fix Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-02 14:38 ` Zach Levis
2013-08-04 16:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20130804143527.GA18906@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