exec:check_unsafe_exec: use while_each_thread() rather than next_thread()
next_thread() should be avoided, change check_unsafe_exec() to use while_each_thread(). Nobody except signal->curr_target actually needs next_thread-like code, and we need to change (fix) this interface. This particular code is fine, p == current. But in general the code like this can loop forever if p exits and next_thread(t) can't reach the unhashed thread. This also saves 32 bytes. Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
68ce670b6e
commit
83f62a2eac
|
@ -1243,10 +1243,11 @@ static int check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
|
|||
if (current->no_new_privs)
|
||||
bprm->unsafe |= LSM_UNSAFE_NO_NEW_PRIVS;
|
||||
|
||||
t = p;
|
||||
n_fs = 1;
|
||||
spin_lock(&p->fs->lock);
|
||||
rcu_read_lock();
|
||||
for (t = next_thread(p); t != p; t = next_thread(t)) {
|
||||
while_each_thread(p, t) {
|
||||
if (t->fs == p->fs)
|
||||
n_fs++;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user