[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070412113217.GA21911@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:32:17 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To: jjohansen@...e.de
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, chrisw@...s-sol.org,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [AppArmor 40/41] AppArmor: all the rest
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 11:32:00AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 02:08:49AM -0700, jjohansen@...e.de wrote:
> > + } else if (profile1 > profile2) {
> > + /* profile1 cannot be NULL here. */
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&profile1->lock, profile1->int_flags);
> > + if (profile2)
> > + spin_lock(&profile2->lock);
> > +
> > + } else {
> > + /* profile2 cannot be NULL here. */
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&profile2->lock, profile2->int_flags);
> > + spin_lock(&profile1->lock);
> > + }
>
> Ahem...
>
> profile2 is locked individually. profile1 > profile2. profile1 is not
> locked. We try to lock both. profile1 is locked OK, flags (with interrupts
> disabled) are stored into it. We spin trying to lock profile2. Eventually,
> whoever had held profile2 unlocks it, restoring the flags from profile2.
> We happily grab the spinlock and move on. When we unlock the pair, we
> restore flags from profile1. I.e. we are left with interrupts disabled.
Please, ignore - shouldn't have posted without coffee... Flags would be
for different CPUs in that case, obviously.
-
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