Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 4 Aug 2013 10:13:03 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] exec: introduce exec_binprm() for "depth == 0" code | From | Kees Cook <> |
| |
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote: > On 08/03, Kees Cook wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@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 <keescook@chromium.org>
Thanks!
-Kees
-- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security
| |