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 1/5] exec: move allow_write_access/fput to exec_binprm()
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 16:48:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130804144847.GB18906@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jKY1S7wxWCv6ZULU=rvp1fQ9KemcFZxY7ccoX06jdvP3w@mail.gmail.com>
On 08/03, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > @@ -1455,6 +1451,11 @@ static int exec_binprm(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> > ptrace_event(PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC, old_vpid);
> > current->did_exec = 1;
> > proc_exec_connector(current);
> > +
> > + if (bprm->file) {
> > + allow_write_access(bprm->file);
> > + fput(bprm->file);
> > + }
>
> Why not keep the bprm->file = NULL assignment?
Because it is no longer needed.
And now that we have the non-recursive exec_binprm() called right
before free_bprm() it is obvious that it won't be used again.
> Seems reasonable to
> keep that just to be avoid use-after-free accidents.
OK. I will add it back. With the comment to explain that this is
only to catch the possible problems.
I guess it would be better if I resend the whole series to avoid
the confusion. I am going to add your acks. It seems that you acked
everything except 1/3 in the previous series, perhaps you can ack
it too?
Thanks for review!
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-04 14:54 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 [this message]
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 ` [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=20130804144847.GB18906@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