From 437f7fdb607f32b737e4da9f14bebcfdac2c90c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Oleg Nesterov Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:02:45 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] check_unsafe_exec: s/lock_task_sighand/rcu_read_lock/ write_lock(¤t->fs->lock) guarantees we can't wrongly miss LSM_UNSAFE_SHARE, this is what we care about. Use rcu_read_lock() instead of ->siglock to iterate over the sub-threads. We must see all CLONE_THREAD|CLONE_FS threads which didn't pass exit_fs(), it takes fs->lock too. With or without this patch we can miss the freshly cloned thread and set LSM_UNSAFE_SHARE, we don't care. Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov Acked-by: Roland McGrath [ Fixed lock/unlock typo - Hugh ] Acked-by: Hugh Dickins Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- fs/exec.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c index a2e6989dbc3a..a3a8ce83940f 100644 --- a/fs/exec.c +++ b/fs/exec.c @@ -1060,7 +1060,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(install_exec_creds); int check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binprm *bprm) { struct task_struct *p = current, *t; - unsigned long flags; unsigned n_fs; int res = 0; @@ -1068,11 +1067,12 @@ int check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binprm *bprm) n_fs = 1; write_lock(&p->fs->lock); - lock_task_sighand(p, &flags); + rcu_read_lock(); for (t = next_thread(p); t != p; t = next_thread(t)) { if (t->fs == p->fs) n_fs++; } + rcu_read_unlock(); if (p->fs->users > n_fs) { bprm->unsafe |= LSM_UNSAFE_SHARE; @@ -1083,8 +1083,6 @@ int check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binprm *bprm) res = 1; } } - - unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags); write_unlock(&p->fs->lock); return res;