On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 09:28:10AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 07:14:23AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Christoph Hellwig writes:
> >>
> >> > FYI, this clashes badly with my exec rework. I'd suggest you
> >> > drop everything
Christoph Hellwig writes:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 07:14:23AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Christoph Hellwig writes:
>>
>> > FYI, this clashes badly with my exec rework. I'd suggest you
>> > drop everything touching exec here for now, and I can then
>> > add the final file based exec re
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 07:14:23AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig writes:
>
> > FYI, this clashes badly with my exec rework. I'd suggest you
> > drop everything touching exec here for now, and I can then
> > add the final file based exec removal to the end of my series.
>
>
Christoph Hellwig writes:
> FYI, this clashes badly with my exec rework. I'd suggest you
> drop everything touching exec here for now, and I can then
> add the final file based exec removal to the end of my series.
I have looked and I haven't even seen any exec work. Where can it be
found?
I
FYI, this clashes badly with my exec rework. I'd suggest you
drop everything touching exec here for now, and I can then
add the final file based exec removal to the end of my series.
Now that the last callser has been removed remove this code from exec.
For anyone thinking of resurrecing do_execve_file please note that
the code was buggy in several fundamental ways.
- It did not ensure the file it was passed was read-only and that
deny_write_access had been called on it.
6 matches
Mail list logo