[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150320051224.GV29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 05:12:24 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] security/selinux: check for LOOKUP_RCU in
_follow_link.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 03:39:30PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> rcu_read_unlock();
> security_compute_av(ssid, tsid, tclass, avd);
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> (yes: unlock, and then lock).
>
> so avc_has_perm_noaudit needs to bail out of RCU-walk if node turns out to be
> NULL.
NFI, but since
a) the guts of security_compute_av() are under rwlock (shared),
I rather doubt that it could e.g. block
b) avc_has_perm_noaudit() is called from selinux_inode_permission(),
which is called inside RCU-walk - it's hit on selinux setups in every
successful inode_permission()
I'd say that it's no worse than it already was. AFAICS, it's a slowpath and
we don't want to hold rcu_read_lock() over it to avoid stalls, but if the
caller of avc_has_perm_noaudit() used to want rcu_read_lock(), well, we'll
just risks stalls
--
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