On 3/9/20 6:34 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de writes:
On 3/8/20 10:35 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Make it clear that current only needs to be computed once in flush_old_exec. This may have some efficiency improvements and it makes the code easier to change.
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" ebiederm@xmission.com
fs/exec.c | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c index db17be51b112..c3f34791f2f0 100644 --- a/fs/exec.c +++ b/fs/exec.c @@ -1260,13 +1260,14 @@ void __set_task_comm(struct task_struct *tsk, const char *buf, bool exec) */ int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) {
- struct task_struct *me = current; int retval;
/* * Make sure we have a private signal table and that * we are unassociated from the previous thread group. */
- retval = de_thread(current);
- retval = de_thread(me); if (retval) goto out;
@@ -1294,10 +1295,10 @@ int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) bprm->mm = NULL; set_fs(USER_DS);
- current->flags &= ~(PF_RANDOMIZE | PF_FORKNOEXEC | PF_KTHREAD |
- me->flags &= ~(PF_RANDOMIZE | PF_FORKNOEXEC | PF_KTHREAD | PF_NOFREEZE | PF_NO_SETAFFINITY);
I wonder if this line should be aligned with the previous?
In this case I don't think so. The style used for second line is indent with tabs as much as possible to the right. I haven't changed that.
Further mixing a change in indentation style with just a variable rename will make the patch confusing to read because two things have to be verified at the same time.
So while I see why you ask I think this bit needs to stay as is.
Ah, okay, I see. Thanks for explaining this rule, I was not aware of it, but I am still new here :)
Thanks Bernd.