[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140109222555.GK10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 22:25:55 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
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 05:18:09PM -0500, Eric Paris wrote:
> > 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.
>
> We just want the same lifetime as the inode. Allocate the security blob
> when the inode is allocated and free the security blob when the inode is
> freed.
Ultimate freeing of struct inode can easily happen outside of VFS - that's
what ->destroy_inode() is for. Moreover, filesystem might decide to do
very odd things to it, as long as it doesn't do so without RCU delay.
So no, there's no single place to do that.
--
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