On 11/22, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> >> 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 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
On 11/22, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> (11/22/2013 12:54 PM), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > fs_struct->in_exec == T means that this ->fs is used by a single
> > process (thread group), and one of the treads does do_execve().
> >
> > To avoid the mt-exec races this code has the following complications:
> >
(11/22/2013 12:54 PM), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> fs_struct->in_exec == T means that this ->fs is used by a single
> process (thread group), and one of the treads does do_execve().
>
> To avoid the mt-exec races this code has the following complications:
>
> 1. check_unsafe_exec() returns -EBUS
fs_struct->in_exec == T means that this ->fs is used by a single
process (thread group), and one of the treads does do_execve().
To avoid the mt-exec races this code has the following complications:
1. check_unsafe_exec() returns -EBUSY if ->in_exec was
already set by another t
5 matches
Mail list logo