[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwXfD6vCj8sHuB33ctB-D8cfJN45h+iURXA6mR=S0mgwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 14:04:23 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
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 1:56 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> It actually cleaned things up, and made the calling conventions
>> simpler. Just always pass in "reqprot", and have the security layer do
>> the trivial "calculate final prot".
>
> If only it would be trivial ;-/ Take a look at !MMU case (or at the
> description in the posting upthread if you want to avoid seeing your
> breakfast one more time - the code in validate_mmap_request() is
> really ugly).
Don't bother with validate_mmap_request() for nommu. It's ugly, but it
does the same thing, and if it does something else, it's buggy anyway.
Generating 'prot' from 'reqprot' really *should* be as simple as what
I did in my patch. The fact that some places f*ck it up is their
problem - see for example mprotect (I think) that didn't take
MNT_NOEXEC into account.
Don't try to emulate those broken semantics. Just fix them.
Linus
--
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