Re: + c-r-prctl-add-ability-to-set-new-mm_struct-exe_file-update-after-mm-num_exe_file_vmas-removal.patch added to -mm tree

[Konstantin Khlebnikov]

Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/20, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > Guys, while I more-less agree with Matt about single-shot behaviour
> >
> > [ let me copy my and his email
> >
> >    >>  With mm->exe_file this prctl option become a one-shot
> >    >>  only, and while at moment our user-space tool can perfectly
> >    >>  live with that I thought that there is no strict need to
> >    >>  limit the option this way from the very beginning.
> >    >>
> >    >  As far as backward compatibility, isn't it better to lift that restriction
> >    >  later rather than add it? I think the latter would very likely "break"
> >    >  things whereas the former would not.
> >    >
> >    >  I also prefer that restriction because it establishes a bound on how
> >    >  frequently the symlink can change. Keeping it a one-shot deal makes the
> >    >  values that show up in tools like top more reliable for admins.
> > ]
> >
> > I guess maybe it's time to drop one-shot requirement and as result
> > we can drop MMF_EXE_FILE_CHANGED bit completely,
>
> Plus perhaps we can remove this for_each_vma check?
>
> > making overall code
> > simplier?
>
> Personally I'd certainly prefer this ;)
>
>
>
> But let me repeat to avoid the confusion. I am fine either way,
> I am not going to discuss this again unless I see something which
> looks technically wrong. And the current MMF_EXE_FILE_CHANGED
> doesn't look right even if the problem is minor.

Yeah, whole this protection does not protect anything and can be easily bypassed.
For example task can re-execute itself and change exe-file again and again.

> Oleg.
--
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/