On 03/22, Al Viro wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 04:55:39PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > And this means that we just need to ensure that ->in_exec is cleared > > before this mutex is dropped, no? Something like below? > > Probably should work, but I wonder if it would be cleaner to have > ->in_exec replaced with pointer to task_struct responsible. Not > "somebody with that fs_struct for ->fs is trying to do execve(), > has verified that nothing outside of their threads is using this > and had been holding ->signal->cred_guard_mutex ever since then", > but "this is the thread that..." perhaps... or something else to make this "not immediately obvious" fs->in_exec more clear. But I guess we need something simple for -stable, so will you agree with this fix for now? Apart from changelog/comments. retval = de_thread(me); + current->fs->in_exec = 0; if (retval) current->fs->in_exec = 0; is correct but looks confusing. See "V2" below, it clears fs->in_exec after the "if (retval)" check. syzbot says: Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet. so I guess "#syz test: " is pointless right now... Oleg. --- diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c index 506cd411f4ac..02e8824fc9cd 100644 --- a/fs/exec.c +++ b/fs/exec.c @@ -1236,6 +1236,7 @@ int begin_new_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) if (retval) goto out; + current->fs->in_exec = 0; /* * Cancel any io_uring activity across execve */ @@ -1497,6 +1498,8 @@ static void free_bprm(struct linux_binprm *bprm) } free_arg_pages(bprm); if (bprm->cred) { + // for the case exec fails before de_thread() + current->fs->in_exec = 0; mutex_unlock(¤t->signal->cred_guard_mutex); abort_creds(bprm->cred); } @@ -1862,7 +1865,6 @@ static int bprm_execve(struct linux_binprm *bprm) sched_mm_cid_after_execve(current); /* execve succeeded */ - current->fs->in_exec = 0; current->in_execve = 0; rseq_execve(current); user_events_execve(current); @@ -1881,7 +1883,6 @@ static int bprm_execve(struct linux_binprm *bprm) force_fatal_sig(SIGSEGV); sched_mm_cid_after_execve(current); - current->fs->in_exec = 0; current->in_execve = 0; return retval;