linux-kernel - Re: suspicious RCU usage in security/selinux/netnode.c

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTv_VfF+1CtczdjkGwVHk1Or-PD+KPdk0TsOqX8Kwr_6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 15 May 2012 14:35:43 -0400
From:	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	sds@...ho.nsa.gov, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: suspicious RCU usage in security/selinux/netnode.c

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Here you go:
>
> o       rcu_dereference_check() is for code shared between readers and
>        writers, so that it might be protected by either rcu_read_lock()
>        or some lock.
>
> o       rcu_dereference_protected() is for code that is only used by
>        updaters and never by readers.  So rcu_dereference_protected()
>        is (slightly) lighter weight than rcu_dereference_check()
>        because it does not need to protect against concurrent
>        updates.

Perfect, thank you.  Looks like rcu_dereference_protected() is the
right choice here.  Patch coming tomorrow if not later today.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.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/