Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:41:32 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: Hmm.. "notify_parent()". |
| |
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > b) we are using the same thing in do_signal() on all architectures. > > Yes, this could be cleaned up.
Umm... That too, but I mean unprotected access to ->p_pptr.
> > c) generating ELF coredumps and exec.c::must_not_trace_exec() are > > vulnerable too. > > Basically anything that uses p_pptr, I think. Which is not that much.
Nah... About a half of these places is under the tasklist_lock.
> > d) Where do we initialize ->p_pptr if test in the beginning of > > do_fork() fails? > > Look at the line that says "*p = *current", and grok it.
<self-LART> Ouch. </self-LART> I need more coffee. Sorry.
> Anyway, what I really wanted to know was whether I was overlooking > something or not. You seem to agree that it looks like a real bug.
It does.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |