Thank you, but I think this patch is wrong and redundant.
Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 16:10 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > +static const char *tomoyo_get_exe(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > +{
> > + struct file *exe_file;
> > + const char *cp = NULL;
> > +
> > + if (!mm)
> > + return NULL;
> > + exe_file = get_mm_exe_file(mm);
> > + if (!exe_file)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + cp = tomoyo_realpath_from_path(&exe_file->f_path);
>
> tomoyo_realpath_from_path can return NULL here, thus we'd leak the
> f_path in the caller... I guess this should be:
>
> > + path_get(&exe_file->f_path);
>
> if (cp)
> path_get(&exe_file->f_path);
>
Why do we need to let the caller call path_put() ?
There is no need to do like proc_exe_link() does, for
tomoyo_get_exe() returns pathname as "char *".
> > + fput(exe_file);
> > + return cp;
> > +}
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>