|
Message-ID: <20120312143400.GA23113@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:34:00 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> To: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>, WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Stephen Wilson <wilsons@...rt.ca>, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] exec: add a global execve counter On 03/12, Djalal Harouni wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 06:25:12PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > Well, I don't think it is right to add this counter into task_struct. > > > > It should be per-process, signal_struct makes more sense. Or may be > > mm_struct. > Some /proc/<pid>/{syscall,stack,...} do not operate on mm_struct so why we > should add the: "acquire a reference to mm, get exec_id and mmput". This could be simpler, just read the counter under task_lock(). And unless I misread the next patches syscall/stack can use current->mm lockless. OK, nevermind. > For the signal_struct currently I don't know, from a comment it seems that > signal_struct can be shared! Yes, it is shared, and that is why it makes sense for the per-process data. All threads in the thread group (process) have the same ->signal. And unlike ->mm, ->signal survives after exec. Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.