[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1576501515.4579.332.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 08:05:15 -0500
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.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 v4 2/2] IMA: Call workqueue functions to measure queued
keys
On Mon, 2019-12-16 at 15:53 +0900, James Bottomley wrote:
> That doesn't matter ... the question is, is the input assumption that
> both pre/post have to be called or neither must correct? If so, the
> code is wrong, if not, explain why.
Thanks, James, for looking at the locking.
"ima_process_keys" is set once. Once it is set, the keys are measured
immediately. For performance to avoid taking the mutex, both the
reader and writer check "ima_process_keys" twice, once without taking
the lock and, again, after taking the lock. Based on the second test,
the reader queues the "key" or not. Refer to ima_queue_key().
The latest patch version sets "ima_process_keys" after taking the
lock. With this change, the comment in ima_process_queued_keys() is
now correct. We're now guaranteed to process the queued "keys" just
once and not drop any "key" measurements.
I hope this answers your question.
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists