>> I have found no problem in this patch. However, I have a very basic question. >> Why do we need to keep fs->in_exec? > > To ensure that a sub-thread can't create a new process with the same > ->fs while we are doing exec without LSM_UNSAFE_SHARE, I guess. This > is only for security/ code.
But in LSM_UNSAFE_SHARE case, we have no check, right? I'm amazing why we don't need anything. > >> If it is correct, >> can't we move it it to signal->in_exec? > > Yes, perhaps, I am thinking about more cleanups too. But not that this > will add the subtle change. CLONE_THREAD doesn't require CLONE_FS, so > copy_fs() can fail even it the caller doesn't share ->fs with the execing > thread. And we still need fs->lock to set signal->in_exec, this looks > a bit strange. Oops. Yes, this is totally odd. Sorry, we need to stop off topic discussion. Anyway Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motoh...@jp.fujitsu.com> > >> I am not expert in this area and I may overlook something. > > Neither me ;) So this patch tries to not change the current logic. > > I feel that perhaps we can do more cleanups, but I am not really sure > and this needs a separate change. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
