Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:27:41 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | [PATCH 4/5] exec: don't retry if request_module() fails |
| |
A separate one-liner for better documentation.
It doesn't make sense to retry if request_module() fails to exec /sbin/modprobe, add the addition "request_module() < 0" check.
However, this logic still doesn't look exactly right:
1. It would be better to check "request_module() != 0", the user space modprobe process should report the correct exit code. But I didn't dare to add the user-visible change.
2. The whole ENOEXEC logic looks suboptimal. Suppose that we try to exec a "#!path-to-unsupported-binary" script. In this case request_module() + "retry" will be done twice: first by the "depth == 1" code, and then again by the "depth == 0" caller which doesn't make sense.
3. And note that in the case above bprm->buf was already changed by load_script()->prepare_binprm(), so this looks even more ugly.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> --- fs/exec.c | 3 ++- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c index 48344a2..d9fd32c 100644 --- a/fs/exec.c +++ b/fs/exec.c @@ -1418,7 +1418,8 @@ int search_binary_handler(struct linux_binprm *bprm) if (printable(bprm->buf[0]) && printable(bprm->buf[1]) && printable(bprm->buf[2]) && printable(bprm->buf[3])) return retval; - request_module("binfmt-%04x", *(ushort *)(bprm->buf + 2)); + if (request_module("binfmt-%04x", *(ushort *)(bprm->buf + 2)) < 0) + return retval; need_retry = false; goto retry; } -- 1.5.5.1
| |