[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120530205320.GX11775@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 21:53:20 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: fix IMA lockdep circular locking dependency
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 04:33:36PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 21:24 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 03:42:47PM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> > > security_file_mmap() would pretty much only be used in do_mmap_pgoff()
> > > (or validate_mmap_request)
> >
> > Callers, actually - the whole point is to lift it out of under ->mmap_sem.
> > The tricky part is reqprot vs. prot mess.
>
> Linus already addressed it in the original patch, which I split into two
> as you suggested:
> 733559f - "security: move security_file_mmap() and rename to security_mmap_file()"
> b3649e9 security: define and use the new security_mmap_addr() hook
Ehh...
* elf_map() should just be using vm_map/vm_unmap (see vfs.git#for-next)
* that goto out; in sys_mmap_pgooff() is an instant leak - you miss
fput() that way
* again, prot handling for !MMU case differs from MMU one. Sure, we
can duplicate both, but it's getting seriously ugly ;-/
* while we are at it, checking address in validate_mmap_request() is
really odd, seeing that we have the only call to validate_mmap_request()
followed by
/* we ignore the address hint */
addr = 0;
len = PAGE_ALIGN(len);
--
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