lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] c/r: prctl: Add ability to set new mm_struct::exe_file
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 08:41:20PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
...
>
> Still can't understand. I think you need:
>
> file = fget(fd);
> if (!file)
> return -EBADF;
>
> down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> if (mm->num_exe_file_vmas) {
> fput(mm->exe_file);
> mm->exe_file = file;
> file = NULL;
> }
> up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
>
> if (!file)
> return 0;
>
> fput(file);
> return -ESOMETHING;
>
> and that is all.

This breaks overall logic of num_exe_file_vmas.
What the point to have it at all then? I mean,
if there several executable sections in elf file,
once loader finish its work we will have
num_exe_file_vmas more than 1.

Then the process calls for prctl and replaces
own exe_file (I'm talking about possible scenario
since for our own tool we know that there will be
only one .text section and we're more-less safe
in replacing own exe_file, but this interface
will be available for everyone who has c/r config
entry turned on, so I'm trying to find which
negative impact this feature might have, call me
paranoid), so once process has replaced own exe_file
to something else the code which depends on
num_exe_file_vmas become broken.

May not we have a scenario when removed_exe_file_vma
is be called somewhere else later, once this prctl
finished its work? That's what I fear of.

Cyrill


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-01 21:03    [W:0.090 / U:0.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site