linux-kernel - Re: How to lock current->signal->tty

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:43:14 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...hat.com, jack@...e.cz, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	tony.luck@...el.com, jdike@...aya.com,
	James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com
Subject: Re: How to lock current->signal->tty

Ar Maw, 2006-08-08 am 13:11 -0400, ysgrifennodd Stephen Smalley:
> Does this look sane?  Or do we need a common helper factored from
> disassociate_ctty()?  Why is the locking different for TIOCNOTTY in the
> non-leader case?

The non-leader case for TIOCNOTTY in the base kernel is different
because it is wrong and I've fixed that one.

If you can factor disassociate_ctty out to do what you need I'd prefer
that path so the tty locking actually ends up in the tty layer.

> +	mutex_lock(&tty_mutex);
> +	tty = current->signal->tty;
>  	if (tty) {
>  		file_list_lock();

Looks sane and the lock ordering matches vhangup() which may actually
also do what you want - I'm not 100% sure I follow what SELinux tries to
do here.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/