On 09/16, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > IOW. Lets ignore do_close_on_exec(), lets ignore the fact that unshare_fd() > > can fail and thus it makes sense to call it before point-of-no-return. > > > > Any other reason why we can't simply call unshare_files() at the end of > > __do_execve_file() on success? > > The reason we call we call unshare_files is in case the files are shared > with another process. AKA old style linux threads, or someone being > clever. In that case we need a private copy of files for close on exec > because we should not close the files of the other process that has not > called exec. This is clear, > The only reason for calling unshare_files before the point of no return > is so that we can get a good error message to the calling process if > unshare_files fails. OK, so you too think there are no other reasons. > AKA it would be reasonable to move unshare_files to just above > do_close_on_exec in flush_old_exec. We could further make the > unshare_files not return displaced and just drop it. Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind. Oleg.
