Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Aug 2013 14:11:50 -0700 | From | Kees Cook <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] fs/binfmts: Improve handling of loops |
| |
Hi Zach,
I like the idea behind these clean ups. Thanks for working on them!
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 04:21:40PM -0700, Zach Levis wrote: > This v3 is based off Oleg's changes from "exec: more cleanups" and > "exec: minor cleanups + minor fix"
I would echo all of Oleg's comments on the series so far. Additionally, please use "scripts/checkpatch.pl" for checking your patches for common errors (see item 4 in Documentation/SubmittingPatches). I see a number of problems that are detected by the tool:
WARNING: line over 80 characters #52: FILE: fs/exec.c:1403: + if (retval == -ELOOP && bprm->recursion_depth == 0) { /* cur, previous */
...
ERROR: trailing statements should be on next line #269: FILE: fs/binfmt_em86.c:70: + if (retval < 0) return retval;
...
ERROR: "(foo*)" should be "(foo *)" #341: FILE: fs/binfmt_flat.c:791: + memset((void*)(datapos + data_len), 0, bss_len +
etc.
After that, be sure to use "scripts/get_maintainer.pl" for generating your CC list (see item 5 in SubmittingPatches; I initially missed this series -- adding more CCs for people that have touched the code can help with your reviews).
Also, you only need to include a single Signed-off-by line for yourself. :)
> It incorporates Oleg and Andrew's suggestions and takes care > of the issue from Dan's patch "fs/binfmts: double unlock in > search_binary_handler()"
In the commit message, can you include some examples of how to generate the loops you're encountering? This helps people understand why you're doing what you're doing and provides a way for people to reproduce the conditions themselves.
Thanks,
-Kees
-- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security
| |