Re: futex question

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> index d49be6b..0812ba6 100644
> --- a/fs/exec.c
> +++ b/fs/exec.c
> @@ -1295,6 +1295,22 @@ int do_execve(char * filename,
>  	bool clear_in_exec;
>  	int retval;
>  
> +	retval = -EWOULDBLOCK;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_FUTEX
> +	if (unlikely(current->robust_list))
> +		goto out_ret;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> +	if (unlikely(current->compat_robust_list))
> +		goto out_ret;
> +#endif
> +	spin_lock_irq(&current->pi_lock);
> +	if (!list_empty(&current->pi_state_list)) {
> +		spin_unlock_irq(&current->pi_lock);
> +		goto out_ret;
> +	}
> +	spin_unlock_irq(&current->pi_lock);
> +#endif

i suspect this should have the form of:

	retval = can_exec_robust_futexes();
	if (retval)
		goto out_ret

  	retval = unshare_files(&displaced);
  	if (retval)
  		goto out_ret;

	...

but ... shouldnt we just do what exec normally does and zap any state 
that shouldnt be carried over into the new context - instead of denying 
the exec? Am i missing something?

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/