Re: Q: check_unsafe_exec() races (Was: [PATCH 2/4] fix setuidsometimes doesn't)

[Al Viro]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 03:38:49AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 01:28:01AM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Minor bisectability issue: the third patch, which introduces
> > int unshare_fs_struct(void), needs to return 0 when it succeeds:
> > that gets corrected in the fourth patch.
> 
> ACK.
> 
> > Lockdep objects to how check_unsafe_exec nests write_lock(&p->fs_lock)
> > inside lock_task_sighand(p, &flags).  It's right: we sometimes take
> > sighand->siglock in interrupt, so if such an interrupt occurred just
> > after you take fs_lock elsewhere, that could deadlock with this.  It
> > seems happy with taking fs_lock just outside the lock_task_sighand.
> 
> Right you are, check_unsafe_exec() reordered.  Will push in a few.

Rebased and pushed (same tree, same branch; included into for-next, along
with related cleanups).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/