From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@ioremap.net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Zach Levis <zml@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 7/8] exec: don't retry if request_module() fails
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:41:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130805134145.GA15652@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130805134113.GA15603@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 additional "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>
Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
---
fs/exec.c | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
index f69cf54..682895d 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-05 13:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-05 13:41 [PATCH v2 0/8] exec: cleanup search_binary_handler() Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-05 13:41 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] exec: introduce exec_binprm() for "depth == 0" code Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-05 13:41 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] exec: kill "int depth" in search_binary_handler() Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-05 13:41 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] exec: proc_exec_connector() should be called only once Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-05 13:41 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] exec: move allow_write_access/fput to exec_binprm() Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-05 13:41 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] exec: kill ->load_binary != NULL check in search_binary_handler() Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-05 13:41 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] exec: cleanup the CONFIG_MODULES logic Oleg Nesterov
2013-08-05 13:41 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2013-08-05 13:41 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] exec: cleanup the error handling in search_binary_handler() 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=20130805134145.GA15652@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