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;
Date:   Tue, 7 Apr 2020 18:17:06 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@gmail.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] exec: Make unlocking exec_update_mutex explict
Message-ID: <20200407161706.l5zfgghwr3p4vz2c@wittgenstein>
References: <87blobnq02.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <CAHk-=wgYCUbEmwieOBzVNZbSAM9wCZA8Z0665onpNnEcC-UpDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <AM6PR03MB5170B606F9AC663225EC9609E4C60@AM6PR03MB5170.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAHk-=whM3r7zrm8mSi7HJhuZbYiXx9PFU5VQYeKm6Low=r15eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <AM6PR03MB517003D5965F48AC5FE7283DE4C60@AM6PR03MB5170.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAHk-=wg5LvjumW9PVQiF7jB8yig98K8XTk4tHo9W-sYmxzW+9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <87lfnda3w3.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <CAHk-=wjuv_J+2KOi+Fhr_nBKYf5CXr76DQKThA3uxXm3rCC3Uw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87wo6s3wxd.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <87imic3wtz.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87imic3wtz.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:31:52PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> With install_exec_creds updated to follow immediately after
> setup_new_exec, the failure of unshare_sighand is the only
> code path where exec_update_mutex is held but not explicitly
> unlocked.
> 
> Update that code path to explicitly unlock exec_update_mutex.
> 
> Remove the unlocking of exec_update_mutex from free_bprm.
> 
> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>

Yeah, assuming that I didn't miss any subtleties just now.
By "explicit" I assume you mean not conditionally unlocked, i.e. we
don't need to check any condition in free_binprm().

Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>