Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
> >
> > @@ -1573,7 +1573,7 @@ asmlinkage long sys_unshare(unsigned lon
> >
> > if (new_sigh) {
> > sigh = current->sighand;
> > - current->sighand = new_sigh;
> > + rcu_assign_pointer(current->sighand, new_sigh);
> > new_sigh = sigh;
> > }
>
> Isn't it better to just replace this code with
> 'BUG_ON(new_sigh != NULL)' ?
>
> It is never executed, but totally broken, afaics.
> task_lock() has nothing to do with ->sighand changing.
>
/*
* Unsharing of sighand for tasks created with CLONE_SIGHAND is not
* supported yet
*/
static int unshare_sighand(unsigned long unshare_flags, struct sighand_struct **new_sighp)
It's all just a place-holder at present.
If we don't plan on ever supporting unshare(CLONE_SIGHAND) we should take
that code out and make it return EINVAL. Right now.
And because we don't presently support CLONE_SIGHAND we should return
EINVAL if it's set. Right now.
And we should change sys_unshare() to reject not-understood flags. Right
now.
If we don't do these things we'll silently break 2.6.16-back-compatibility
of applications which are coded for future kernels.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
