On Sun, Mar 08, 2020 at 04:36:17PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
This makes the code clearer and makes it easier to implement a mutex
that is not taken over any locations that may block indefinitely waiting
for userspace.
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <redacted>
---
fs/exec.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
index c3f34791f2f0..ff74b9a74d34 100644
--- a/fs/exec.c
+++ b/fs/exec.c
@@ -1194,6 +1194,23 @@ static int de_thread(struct task_struct *tsk)
flush_itimer_signals();
#endif
+ BUG_ON(!thread_group_leader(tsk));
+ return 0;
+
+killed:
+ /* protects against exit_notify() and __exit_signal() */
+ read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
+ sig->group_exit_task = NULL;
+ sig->notify_count = 0;
+ read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
+ return -EAGAIN;
+}
+
+
+static int unshare_sighand(struct task_struct *me)
+{
+ struct sighand_struct *oldsighand = me->sighand;
+
if (refcount_read(&oldsighand->count) != 1) {
struct sighand_struct *newsighand;
/*@@ -1210,23 +1227,13 @@ static int de_thread(struct task_struct *tsk)
write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
spin_lock(&oldsighand->siglock);
- rcu_assign_pointer(tsk->sighand, newsighand);
+ rcu_assign_pointer(me->sighand, newsighand);
spin_unlock(&oldsighand->siglock);
write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
__cleanup_sighand(oldsighand);
}
This is fine for now but we share an aweful lot of code with
copy_sighand(). We should earmark this to look into consolidating the
core operations into a common helper called from both copy_sighand() and
unshare_sighand() maybe even dumbing it down to one helper. But not
needed for now.
Otherwise:
Acked-by: Christian Brauner <redacted>