From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f181.google.com (mail-pd0-f181.google.com [209.85.192.181]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7C1B6B0032 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:22:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by pdjp10 with SMTP id p10so1504523pdj.3 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:22:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.provo.novell.com (smtp2.provo.novell.com. [137.65.250.81]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rz8si2264592pbc.28.2015.02.19.10.22.39 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:22:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1424370153.18191.12.camel@stgolabs.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] tomoyo: robustify handling of mm->exe_file From: Davidlohr Bueso Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:22:33 -0800 In-Reply-To: <201502192007.AFI30725.tHFFOOMVFOQSLJ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> References: <1424304641-28965-1-git-send-email-dbueso@suse.de> <1424304641-28965-4-git-send-email-dbueso@suse.de> <1424324307.18191.5.camel@stgolabs.net> <201502192007.AFI30725.tHFFOOMVFOQSLJ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, takedakn@nttdata.co.jp, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 20:07 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Why do we need to let the caller call path_put() ? > There is no need to do like proc_exe_link() does, for > tomoyo_get_exe() returns pathname as "char *". Having the pathname doesn't guarantee anything later, and thus doesn't seem very robust in the manager call if it can be dropped during the call... or can this never occur in this context? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org