On Sun, 2015-03-15 at 20:05 +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 08:42:05AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > > > > Yes, this code needs cleanups, I agree. Does this series makes it better? > > > > > To me it doesn't, and the diffstat below shows that it blows the code. > > > > > > > > Looking at some of the caller paths now, I have to disagree. > > > > > > And I believe you are wrong. But let me repeat, I leave this to Cyrill > > > and Konstantin. Cleanups are always subjective. > > > > > > > > In fact, to me it complicates this code. For example. Personally I think > > > > > that MMF_EXE_FILE_CHANGED should die. And currently we can just remove it. > > > > > > > > How could you remove this? > > > > > > Just remove this flag and the test_and_set_bit(MMF_EXE_FILE_CHANGED) check. > > > Again, this is subjective, but to me it looks ugly. Why do we allow to > > > change ->exe_file but only once? > > This came from very first versions of the functionality implemented > in prctl. It supposed to help sysadmins to notice if there exe > transition happened. As to me it doesn't bring much security, if I > would be a virus I would simply replace executing code with ptrace > or via other ways without telling outside world that i've changed > exe path. That said I would happily rip off this MMF_EXE_FILE_CHANGED > bit but I fear security guys won't be that happy about it. > (CC'ing Kees) Also adding Michael for any prctl manpage and api changes. -- 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>