[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140109221303.GI10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 22:13:03 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SELinux: Fix possible NULL pointer dereference in
selinux_inode_permission()
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 10:31:55AM -0500, Eric Paris wrote:
> Didn't Al find this/something very similar. I really hate this
> solution. Why should every LSM try to understand the intimate
> lifetime rules of the parent subsystems? The real problem is that
> inode_free_security() is being called while the inode is still in use.
> While I agree with the assessment, I disagree with the solution. Let
> me try to find where Al and Christoph talked about this....
Because LSM has stuck its fingers into the guts of those filesystems,
obviously.
Just RCU-delay freeing the damn thing and treat NULL ->i_security in
->permission() (which can happen only with MAY_NOT_BLOCK in mask) as
"return -ECHILD and let the caller deal with that".
Modifying every ->destroy_inode() is obviously wrong - there's a lot more
filesystems than LSM buggers in the tree.
--
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