Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:11:59 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: + 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.
| |