[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080531011242.GA7061@ubuntu>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 04:12:42 +0300
From: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: casey@...aufler-ca.com, paul.moore@...com,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX -v2 -rc4] Smack: Respect 'unlabeled' netlabel
mode
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 04:25:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 02:57:51 +0300
> "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > + mutex_lock(&smack_ambient_lock);
> > + nlsp->domain = kstrdup(smack_net_ambient, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > + mutex_unlock(&smack_ambient_lock);
>
> no no no no no. And no.
>
> GFP_ATOMIC is *unreliable*. Using it in a "security" feature is a bug
> - if it fails, the feature isn't secure any more.
>
> Failing to check the kmalloc() return value might be a bug.
>
> If we _need_ GFP_ATOMIC here then taking a mutex in a cannot-sleep
> context is a bug.
>
> The patch adds a kmalloc but doesn't add a kfree. Is it leaky?
>
> Finally, why is there a need to take a lock around a single store
> instruction?
Possibly the worst three lines written ever. GFP_ATOMIC line
was cut-and-paste forgetting to change it to GFP_KERNEL and the lock
is already useless.
--
"Better to light a candle, than curse the darkness"
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