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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2017 17:06:16 -0500 From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] fs: detect that the i_rwsem has already been taken exclusively Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes: > On Sep 30, 2017 18:33, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:. > > That would require a task_work or another kind of work callback so that > the writes of the xattr are not synchronous with the vfs callback > correct? > > No, why? > > You should just invalidate the IMA on xattr write or other operations that make the measurement invalid. You only need the inner > lock. > > Why are you guys making up all these things just to make it complicated? I am not trying to make things complicated I am just trying to understand the conversation. Unless I misread something it was being pointed out there are some vfs operations today on which ima writes an ima xattr as a side effect. And those operations hold the i_sem. So perhaps I am misunderstanding things or writing the ima xattr needs to happen at some point. Which implies something like queued work. But perhaps I a misunderstanding the conversation and ima. I frequenly misunderstand ima. Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists