On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/03, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > +static int exec_binprm(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>> > +{
>> > + pid_t old_pid, old_vpid;
>> > + int ret;
>> > +
>> > + /* Need to fetch pid before load_binary changes it */
>> > + old_pid = current->pid;
>> > + rcu_read_lock();
>> > + old_vpid = task_pid_nr_ns(current,
>> > task_active_pid_ns(current->parent));
>> > + rcu_read_unlock();
>> > +
>> > + ret = search_binary_handler(bprm);
>> > + if (ret >= 0) {
>> > + trace_sched_process_exec(current, old_pid, bprm);
>> > + ptrace_event(PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC, old_vpid);
>> > + current->did_exec = 1;
>> > + }
>>
>> Cleanup looks good. One idea here, though: this could be made more
>> pretty by doing:
>>
>> if (ret < 0)
>> return ret;
>>
>> to avoid the indentation for the "expected" code path.
>
> Well, I do not reallt mind. But this "if" block is simple and small,
> we do we need another "return" ?
>
> To me the code looks more readable this way, but I can redo/resend.
Cool, that's fine how it is. It was just a style suggestion. :)
Acked-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
