From 6b3c538f5b2cfc53cb6803ec5001bbcf8f18a98e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Oleg Nesterov Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:24:46 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] exec: cleanup the error handling in search_binary_handler() The error hanling and ret-from-loop look confusing and inconsistent. - "retval >= 0" simply returns - "!bprm->file" returns too but with read_unlock() because binfmt_lock was already re-acquired - "retval != -ENOEXEC || bprm->mm == NULL" does "break" and relies on the same check after the main loop Consolidate these checks into a single if/return statement. need_retry still checks "retval == -ENOEXEC", but this and -ENOENT before the main loop are not needed. This is only for pathological and impossible list_empty(&formats) case. It is not clear why do we check "bprm->mm == NULL", probably this should be removed. Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov Acked-by: Kees Cook Cc: Al Viro Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov Cc: Zach Levis Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- fs/exec.c | 11 +++-------- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c index 635b586de336..8875dd10ae7a 100644 --- a/fs/exec.c +++ b/fs/exec.c @@ -1399,22 +1399,17 @@ int search_binary_handler(struct linux_binprm *bprm) bprm->recursion_depth++; retval = fmt->load_binary(bprm); bprm->recursion_depth--; - if (retval >= 0) { + if (retval >= 0 || retval != -ENOEXEC || + bprm->mm == NULL || bprm->file == NULL) { put_binfmt(fmt); return retval; } read_lock(&binfmt_lock); put_binfmt(fmt); - if (retval != -ENOEXEC || bprm->mm == NULL) - break; - if (!bprm->file) { - read_unlock(&binfmt_lock); - return retval; - } } read_unlock(&binfmt_lock); - if (need_retry && retval == -ENOEXEC && bprm->mm) { + if (need_retry && retval == -ENOEXEC) { if (printable(bprm->buf[0]) && printable(bprm->buf[1]) && printable(bprm->buf[2]) && printable(bprm->buf[3])) return retval; -- 2.20.1