linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] IMA: Define workqueue for early boot "key" measurements

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]

Date:   Fri, 13 Dec 2019 07:51:37 -0800
From:   Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     eric.snowberg@...cle.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com, matthewgarrett@...gle.com,
        sashal@...nel.org, jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] IMA: Define workqueue for early boot "key"
 measurements

On 12/13/19 5:06 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:

> I just need to convince myself that this is correct.  Normally before
> reading and writing a flag, there is some sort of locking.  With
> taking the mutex before setting the flag, there is now only a lock
> around the single writer.
> 
> Without taking a lock before reading the flag, will the queue always
> be empty is the question.  If it is, then the comment is correct, but
> the code assumes not and processes the list again.  Testing the flag
> after taking the mutex just re-enforces the comment.
> 
> Bottom line, does reading the flag need to be lock protected?
> 
> Mimi
> 

I'll change this function to check the flag again after taking the lock 
and process only if the queue has entries. Will send an update today.

Please let me know if you have any concern in other functions in this 
file. I'll address them, if any, in today's update.

thanks,
  -lakshmi