On 08/03, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote: > > +static int exec_binprm(struct linux_binprm *bprm) > > +{ > > + pid_t old_pid, old_vpid; > > + int ret; > > + > > + /* Need to fetch pid before load_binary changes it */ > > + old_pid = current->pid; > > + rcu_read_lock(); > > + old_vpid = task_pid_nr_ns(current, > > task_active_pid_ns(current->parent)); > > + rcu_read_unlock(); > > + > > + ret = search_binary_handler(bprm); > > + if (ret >= 0) { > > + trace_sched_process_exec(current, old_pid, bprm); > > + ptrace_event(PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC, old_vpid); > > + current->did_exec = 1; > > + } > > Cleanup looks good. One idea here, though: this could be made more > pretty by doing: > > if (ret < 0) > return ret; > > to avoid the indentation for the "expected" code path.
Well, I do not reallt mind. But this "if" block is simple and small, we do we need another "return" ? To me the code looks more readable this way, but I can redo/resend. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
