text: Olaf Dietsche wrote:> Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> writes:> > > Although, I'd rather not lump together unrelated tests without> renaming must_not_trace_exec(). Btw, can someone enlighten me what> this atomic_read() test is all about.Oops... your fix is obviously correct.I assumed that the test was to check if the caller is a thread, but that sounds odd -- wouldn't it stop being a thread after the exec anyway? Maybe that part happens after compute_creds, so this prevents a race? Although I don't see how it could be triggered if the thread never entered usermode before getting a new fs/files/sighand.Anyone?> > Regards, Olaf.> > diff -urN a/security/commoncap.c b/security/commoncap.c> --- a/security/commoncap.c Mon Apr 12 10:38:17 2004> +++ b/security/commoncap.c Mon Apr 12 11:10:38 2004> @@ -118,9 +118,9 @@> static inline int must_not_trace_exec (struct task_struct *p)> {> return ((p->ptrace & PT_PTRACED) && !(p->ptrace & PT_PTRACE_CAP))> - || atomic_read(¤t->fs->count) > 1> - || atomic_read(¤t->files->count) > 1> - || atomic_read(¤t->sighand->count) > 1;> + || atomic_read(&p->fs->count) > 1> + || atomic_read(&p->files->count) > 1> + || atomic_read(&p->sighand->count) > 1;> }> [...]--Andy-To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" inthe body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.orgMore majordomo info at read the FAQ at