linux-kernel - Re: [TOMOYO 05/15](repost) Domain transition handler functions.

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:	Wed, 3 Oct 2007 23:19:20 +0900
From:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl
Cc:	jmorris@...ei.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, chrisw@...s-sol.org
Subject: Re: [TOMOYO 05/15](repost) Domain transition handler functions.

Hello.

Thank you for pointing out.

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Currently, TOMOYO Linux avoids read_lock, on the assumption that
> > (1) First, ptr->next is initialized with NULL.
> > (2) Later, ptr->next is assigned non-NULL address.
> > (3) Assigning to ptr->next is done atomically.
>  (4) wmb after asigning ptr->next
>  (5) rmb before reading ptr->next
Excuse me, but I didn't understand why (4) and (5) are needed.

append_function() {

  down(semaphore_for_write_protect);
  ...
  ptr = head;
  while (ptr->next) ptr = ptr->next;
  ptr->next = new_entry;
  ...
  up(semaphore_for_write_protect);

}

read_function() {

  for (ptr = head; ptr; ptr = ptr->next) {
    ...
  }

}

Are (4) and (5) needed even when (3) is exclusively protected by down() and up() ?

Regards.

-
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/