[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <0BE96E7A-204A-4CEC-BA8F-0112434F7B2C@mac.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 06:58:46 -0400
From: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
To: John Johansen <jjohansen@...e.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [AppArmor 00/44] AppArmor security module overview
On Jun 26, 2007, at 22:24:03, John Johansen wrote:
> other issues that have been raised are:
> - the use of d_path to generate the pathname used for mediation when a
> file is opened.
> - Generating the pathname using a reverse walk is considered ugly
A little more than "ugly". In this basic concurrent rename() and
path-lookup load:
mkdir -p /a/b/0
mkdir -p /a/b/2
mkdir -p /c
touch /a/b/0/1
cd /a/b
while true; mv 0/1 2/3; mv 2/3 0/1; done &
cd /
while true; do mv a/b c/d; mv c/d a/b; done &
while true; do cat a/b/0/1 & done
while true; do cat a/b/2/3 & done
while true; do cat c/d/0/1 & done
while true; do cat c/d/2/3 & done
I seem to recall you could actually end up racing and building a path
to the file in those directories as "a/d/0/3" or some other path at
which it never even remotely existed. I'd love to be wrong, but I
can't help but see this problem in any reverse-pathname-generation
proposal which gets the locking right.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-
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