Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        James Morris <jamorris@linux.microsoft.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Christian Kellner <christian@kellner.me>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>,
        "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>,
        "linux-doc\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm\@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "stable\@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-api\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
References: <AM6PR03MB5170EB4427BF5C67EE98FF09E4E60@AM6PR03MB5170.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
        <87v9nmjulm.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
        <AM6PR03MB5170B976E6387FDDAD59A118E4E70@AM6PR03MB5170.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
        <202003021531.C77EF10@keescook>
        <20200303085802.eqn6jbhwxtmz4j2x@wittgenstein>
        <AM6PR03MB5170285B336790D3450E2644E4E40@AM6PR03MB5170.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
        <87v9nlii0b.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
        <AM6PR03MB5170609D44967E044FD1BE40E4E40@AM6PR03MB5170.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
        <87a74xi4kz.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
        <AM6PR03MB51705AA3009B4986BB6EF92FE4E50@AM6PR03MB5170.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
        <87r1y8dqqz.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
        <AM6PR03MB517053AED7DC89F7C0704B7DE4E50@AM6PR03MB5170.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
        <AM6PR03MB51703B44170EAB4626C9B2CAE4E20@AM6PR03MB5170.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
        <87tv32cxmf.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
        <87v9ne5y4y.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
        <87pndm5y3l.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
        <AM6PR03MB5170FBDA2F0F19ECF2906703E4FE0@AM6PR03MB5170.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 09 Mar 2020 12:34:24 -0500
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR03MB5170FBDA2F0F19ECF2906703E4FE0@AM6PR03MB5170.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
        (Bernd Edlinger's message of "Mon, 9 Mar 2020 13:56:54 +0000")
Message-ID: <87mu8p4elb.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] exec: Only compute current once in flush_old_exec
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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.

Eric