[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] Please pull proc and exec work for 5.7-rc1

On 4/3/20 6:23 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:09 AM Bernd Edlinger <> wrote:
>> On 4/2/20 9:04 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> In fact, then you could drop the
>>> mutex_unlock(&tsk->signal->exec_update_mutex);
>>> in the error case of exec_mmap(), because now the error handling in
>>> free_bprm() would do the cleanup automatically.
>> The error handling is sometimes called when the exec_update_mutex is
>> not taken, in fact even de_thread not called.
> But that's the whole point of the flag. Make the flag be about "do I
> hold the mutex", and then the error handling does the right thing
> regardless.
>> Can you say how you would suggest that to be done?
> I think the easiest thing to do to explain is to just write the patch.
> This is entirely untested, but see what the difference is? I make the
> flag be about exactly where I take the lock, not about some "I have
> called exec_mmap".
> Which means that now exec_mmap() doesn't even need to unlock it in the
> error case, because the unlocking will happen properly in the
> bprm_exit regardless.
> This makes that unconditional unlocking logic much more obvious.
> That said, Eric says he can make it all properly static so that it
> doesn't need that kind of dynamic "if (x) unlock()" logic at all,
> which is much better.
> So this patch is not for consumption, it's purely for "look, something
> like this"

Just one suggestion, in general It would feel pretty much okay if you
like to improve the naming, and the consistency in any of my patches.

> @@ -1067,7 +1069,6 @@ static int exec_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
> down_read(&old_mm->mmap_sem);
> if (unlikely(old_mm->core_state)) {
> up_read(&old_mm->mmap_sem);
> - mutex_unlock(&tsk->signal->exec_update_mutex);

I was trying to replicate the behavior of prepare_bprm_creds
which also unlocks the mutex in the error case, therefore it felt
okay to unlock the mutex here, but it will work either way.

I should further note, that the mutex would be locked if this
error exit is taken, and unlocked if this error happens:

ret = mutex_lock_killable(&tsk->signal->exec_update_mutex);
if (ret)
return ret;

so at least the function comment I introduced above should be updated:
* Maps the mm_struct mm into the current task struct.
* On success, this function returns with the mutex
* exec_update_mutex locked.

> put_binfmt(fmt);
> - if (retval < 0 && bprm->called_exec_mmap) {
> + if (retval < 0 && !bprm->mm) {

Using bprm->mm like this feels like a hack to me. It works here,
but nowhere else. Therefore I changed this line.

Using !bprm->mm in the error handling code made Eric's patch fail.


> Linus

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-04 07:45    [W:0.203 / U:6.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site