linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] ima: use fs method to read integrity data

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

Message-ID: <20170915144903.GA3854@infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 15 Sep 2017 07:49:03 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...nel.org>,
        Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
        Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
        Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
        Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@....ntt.co.jp>,
        Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...sity.com>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ima-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ima: use fs method to read integrity data

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:50:27PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> This is still wrong.
> 
> (a) there is no explanation for why we need that exclusive lock in the
> first place
> 
> Why should a read need exclusive access? You'd think shared is sufficient.
> But regardless, it needs *explanation*.

Shared is sufficient, and nothing in the patch (except for the
description) actually requires an exclusive lock.  It just happens that
ima holds it exclusive for other internal reasons.