linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][SMACK] convert smack rule list to linux list

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:	Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:18:19 +0100
From:	etienne <etienne.basset@...ericable.fr>
To:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
CC:	casey@...aufler-ca.com, paul.moore@...com,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][SMACK] convert smack rule list to linux list

Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> etienne wrote:
>> what's the best way, using a rcu variant for "list_for_each, container_of ...etc" ?
>> (concurrent list insertion are already protected with a mutex, so rcu must the good idea for the read side) 
> Read side will need a read lock.
> I think you need to change from "mutex" to "rw_semaphore" (on the assumption
> that SMACK is safe against read locks that may sleep.  If not, change from
> "mutex" to "rw_spinlock").
> 
> Regards.
> 
or a rcu_read_lock?
since it disables preemption it means no user process will be able to change the list while it's read?

regards,
Etienne

 
--
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/