From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: oleg@redhat.com
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, keescook@chromium.org, mhocko@suse.cz,
snanda@chromium.org, dserrg@gmail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] check_unsafe_exec: use while_each_thread() rather than next_thread()
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:32:15 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <528FBF4F.8090503@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131122202412.GA19563@redhat.com>
(11/22/2013 3:24 PM), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/22, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>
>> (11/22/2013 12:54 PM), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> next_thread() should be avoided, change check_unsafe_exec()
>>> to use while_each_thread(). This also saves 32 bytes.
>>
>> Just curious.
>> Why it should be avoided? Just for cleaner code?
>
> Nobody except signal->curr_target actually need next_thread-like
> code, and
>
>> Or is there
>> serious issue?
>
> We need to change (fix) this interface. This particular code is
> fine, p == current. But in general the code like this can loop
> forever if p exits and next_thread(t) can't reach the unhashed
> thread.
That's enough and good reason.
Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-22 20:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-22 17:54 [PATCH 0/4] in_exec/etc cleanups Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-22 17:54 ` [PATCH 1/4] check_unsafe_exec: use while_each_thread() rather than next_thread() Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-22 19:42 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-11-22 20:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-22 20:32 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2013-11-22 17:54 ` [PATCH 2/4] check_unsafe_exec: kill the dead -EAGAIN and clear_in_exec logic Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-22 20:27 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-11-22 20:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-22 21:00 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-11-23 15:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-22 17:54 ` [PATCH 3/4] exec: move the final allow_write_access/fput into free_bprm() Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-22 20:29 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-11-23 19:22 ` Kees Cook
2013-11-22 17:54 ` [PATCH 4/4] kill task_struct->did_exec Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-22 19:46 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2013-11-22 20:33 ` [PATCH v2 " Oleg Nesterov
2013-11-22 20:33 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
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=528FBF4F.8090503@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dserrg@gmail.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=snanda@chromium.org \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/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