linux-kernel - Re: Kernel panic at Ubuntu: IMA + Apparmor

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACE9dm-Ruvt-kDk3B3YJ9SJ3PvRKa+NJ-e1zpnxcTPk7aDBmug@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 26 Apr 2014 19:54:47 +0300
From:	Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Dmitry Kasatkin <d.kasatkin@...sung.com>,
	linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-team <kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com>
Subject: Re: Kernel panic at Ubuntu: IMA + Apparmor

On 26 April 2014 16:56, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 11:58:45AM +0300, Dmitry Kasatkin wrote:
>
>> Conflict with Apparmor means with Ubuntu.
>>
>> But answering to your early question..
>> IMA does not want permission denied when measuring and re-measuring files.
>> may_open() is doing that job before.
>>
>> We need quickly introduce kernel_read without LSM checks...
>
> *snarl*
>
> What we need quickly is to introduce you to a textbook or two.  As the
> matter of fact, in this case even wikipedia might suffice...
>

Hopefully we have you who were introduced to a textbook or two about relevant
subject and able kindly help us with the solution instead of telling
me this crap...


> Please, figure out what "mandatory locking" is about, what kind of
> exclusion does it provide and how much is it (un)related to LSM.
>

I admit, I missed this issue, but see above, we have you :)


> It has nothing to do with permission being denied; the normal behaviour is
> to *block* until the lock has been removed.  Or failure with -EAGAIN if
> the file had been opened with O_NDELAY.
>
> The effects apply only to read/write and their ilk; they have nothing
> to do with e.g. O_RDWR open().  And having a file already opened r/w
> by somebody does not prevent another process from opening it and acquiring
> an exclusive lock on some range.


-- 
Thanks,
Dmitry
--
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/