lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: + syscallsx86-implement-execveat-system-call.patch added to -mm tree
> @@ -1479,7 +1489,26 @@ static int do_execve_common(struct filen
>
> bprm->file = file;
> - bprm->filename = bprm->interp = filename->name;
> + if (fd == AT_FDCWD || filename->name[0] == '/') {
> + bprm->filename = filename->name;
> + } else {
> + if (filename->name[0] == '\0')
> + pathbuf = kasprintf(GFP_TEMPORARY, "/dev/fd/%d", fd);
> + else
> + pathbuf = kasprintf(GFP_TEMPORARY, "/dev/fd/%d/%s",
> + fd, filename->name);
> + if (!pathbuf) {
> + retval = -ENOMEM;
> + goto out_unmark;
> + }
> + /* Record that a name derived from an O_CLOEXEC fd will be
> + * inaccessible after exec. Relies on having exclusive access to
> + * current->files (due to unshare_files above). */
> + if (close_on_exec(fd, current->files->fdt))
> + bprm->interp_flags |= BINPRM_FLAGS_PATH_INACCESSIBLE;
> + bprm->filename = pathbuf;
+ }
+ bprm->interp = bprm->filename;

Not sure I understand this patch, will try to read later...

Just once question, don't we leak pathbuf if exec() succeeds?

OTOH, if it fails,

> out_free:
> free_bprm(bprm);
> + kfree(pathbuf);

Is it correct if we fail after bprm_change_interp() was called? It seems
that we can free interp == pathbuf twice?

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-14 01:21    [W:0.043 / U:0.312 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site