From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, takedakn@nttdata.co.jp,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] tomoyo: robustify handling of mm->exe_file
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 07:11:02 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201502200711.EIH87066.HSOJLFFOtFVOQM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1424370153.18191.12.camel@stgolabs.net>
Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> 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?
>
tomoyo_get_exe() returns the pathname of executable of current thread.
The executable of current thread cannot be changed while current thread
is inside the manager call. Although the pathname of executable of
current thread could be changed by other threads via namespace manipulation
like pivot_root(), holding a reference guarantees nothing. Your patch helps
for avoiding memory allocation with mmap_sem held, but does not robustify
handling of mm->exe_file for tomoyo.
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-19 22:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-19 0:10 [PATCH -part1 0/3] mm: improve " Davidlohr Bueso
2015-02-19 0:10 ` [PATCH 1/3] kernel/audit: consolidate " Davidlohr Bueso
2015-02-19 3:23 ` Paul Moore
2015-02-21 1:23 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-02-21 13:45 ` Paul Moore
2015-02-21 15:00 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-02-22 13:14 ` Paul Moore
2015-02-23 2:20 ` [PATCH v2 " Davidlohr Bueso
2015-02-23 21:59 ` Paul Moore
2015-02-23 22:02 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-02-23 22:24 ` Paul Moore
2015-02-19 0:10 ` [PATCH 2/3] kernel/audit: robustify " Davidlohr Bueso
2015-02-23 2:20 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] kernel/audit: reduce mmap_sem hold for mm->exe_file Davidlohr Bueso
2015-02-23 21:59 ` Paul Moore
2015-02-19 0:10 ` [PATCH 3/3] tomoyo: robustify handling of mm->exe_file Davidlohr Bueso
2015-02-19 5:38 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-02-19 11:07 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-02-19 18:22 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-02-19 22:11 ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2015-02-20 16:28 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-02-24 2:45 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-02-24 11:35 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-02-24 19:42 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] tomoyo: reduce mmap_sem hold for mm->exe_file Davidlohr Bueso
2015-02-25 11:40 ` Tetsuo Handa
2015-02-25 17:39 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-03-04 17:35 ` Davidlohr Bueso
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201502200711.EIH87066.HSOJLFFOtFVOQM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=takedakn@nttdata.co.jp \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox