[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:09:20 -0400
From: Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
selinux@...ho.nsa.gov, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
john.johansen@...onical.com
Subject: Re: NULL pointer dereference in selinux_ip_postroute_compat
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 08, 2012 04:51:56 PM Eric Paris wrote:
>> Could we add a __init function which does the security_sk_alloc() in
>> the same file where we declared them?
>
> Is it safe to call security_sk_alloc() from inside another __init function? I
> think in both the case of SELinux and Smack it shouldn't be a problem, but I'm
> concerned about the more general case of calling a LSM hook potentially before
> the LSM has been initialized.
>
> If that isn't an issue we could probably do something in ip_init().
The security_initcall() functions should happen way before __init
functions. If an LSM busts, it's the LSM initializing itself too late
not the code here being wrong...
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists