[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Xine.LNX.4.64.0803070159280.8501@us.intercode.com.au>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 02:03:10 +1100 (EST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>
cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...ru>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM-ML <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v8 -rc3] Security: Introduce security= boot parameter
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> Would you mind answering my confusions below so I can do the change
> with good understanding ?
>
> I see preempt_disable() before calling security and vfs_caches init,
> but what will prevent two processors/cores from executing
> security_module_enable() concurrently (thus possibly corrupting
> chosen_lsm) ?
> security_module_enable() is also now used in __init init_smk_fs().
>
> Or the init path got executed serially ?
The init phase only runs on one cpu, see the lock_kernel() in
kernel_init(), from which context the initcalls are eventually run in
sequence.
- James
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
--
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