linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Version 8 (2.6.23) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel

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:	Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:39:48 +0200
From:	"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>
To:	"Al Viro" <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	"Casey Schaufler" <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, torvalds@...l.org,
	akpm@...l.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Version 8 (2.6.23) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel

On 10/18/07, Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 05:57:05AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:17:40PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>
> > Think what happens if CPU1 adds to list and CPU2 sees write to smk_known
> > *before* it sees write to ->smk_next.  We see a single-element list and
> > we'll be lucky if that single entry won't be FUBAR.
>
> While we are at it, what protects smack_cipso_count?
> -

My fault. I sent to Casey a one-liner patch to make "smack_cipso_count++"
be protected by the smk_cipsolock spinlock.

We don't need a lock in the reading side since we don't do a write operation
depending on that read, right ?.

-- 
Ahmed S. Darwish
Homepage: http://darwish.07.googlepages.com
Blog: http://darwish-07.blogspot.com
-
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/