| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1865922a0710190539j4eec697dmffeb7c97b9601c63@mail.gmail.com> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists