On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 04:24:15PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 26 May 2009 04:36:18 -0700 > Matt Helsley <matthltc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I don't see any mention in the changelog of the point brought up by Ingo: > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/10/105 > > Nor of Eric's comments. > > Alexey, pleeeze don't do this. We (read: I) heavily depend upon patch > submitters to keep track of outstanding issues and review comments, > etc. > > If the patch submitter simply blows these things off then it devolves > to me having to keep track of each patch's issue list as well as the > patch itself. My workload goes up by a factor of N and the error rate > goes up by N^2 :( grmbh.. "Security" and "holding ->mmap_sem" were answered and dismissed. You can't do readlink(2) on /proc/*/exe if you can't ptrace task. So no new possible holes are created. ->mmap_sem was held since /proc/*/exe was added and nobody cared. And, again, you can't readlink _any_ /proc/*/exe. Patch simply restores code to year-back state. I'll send removal and readddition of "struct path" as separate things next time. And BTW, there is something unnatural when executable path is attached to mm_struct(!) not task_struct, so yet another argument to ->exe_file removal. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
