|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > linux-kernel archives|
Hugh Dickins <email@example.com> wrote:
> Surely we'd prefer to avoid the overhead of additional confusing
> counts if they can be avoided?
As long as they are properly commented, it shouldn't be too confusing.
> We already have what I think is a satisfactory patch for the struct fs
> part of it:
> /proc can easily manage root and pwd while holding the lock
> instead of raising fs->count.
I'm assume you mean by extending the time we hold task->alloc_lock until we've completed the path_get().
> I don't understand why check_unsafe_exec() needs to check
> current->files->count at all, since do_execve() has already
> done an unshare_files() to get its own copy - and proceeds with
> that one if the exec succeeds.
> My belief is that the files->count check could/should have been
> removed when that unshare_files() was put in. Please explain why
> I'm wrong on that - I can quite accept that I'm muddled about it,
> but please do explain it to me.
It seems you're right about that. I think someone else on the security list probably needs to answer that.
David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html