[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 10:12:09 -0400
From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Cc: linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, zohar@...ux.ibm.com,
christian.brauner@...ntu.com, containers@...ts.linux.dev,
dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
krzysztof.struczynski@...wei.com, roberto.sassu@...wei.com,
mpeters@...hat.com, lhinds@...hat.com, lsturman@...hat.com,
puiterwi@...hat.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com, jamjoom@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paul@...l-moore.com, rgb@...hat.com,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
jpenumak@...hat.com, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 04/26] ima: Move arch_policy_entry into ima_namespace
On 5/20/22 22:46, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 10:06:11AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> @@ -1005,7 +1003,8 @@ void ima_update_policy(struct ima_namespace *ns)
>> * on boot. After loading a custom policy, free the
>> * architecture specific rules stored as an array.
>> */
>> - kfree(arch_policy_entry);
>> + kfree(ns->arch_policy_entry);
>> + ns->arch_policy_entry = NULL;
>
> So the thing that prevents multiple racing occurances of the above two lines is
> that ima_open_policy() sets IMA_FS_BUSY (or returns EBUSY) and then removes
> this file before clearing the flag, right?
Correct.
>
> Seems good.
>
> Reviewed-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
>
>
>> }
>> ima_update_policy_flags(ns);
>>
>> --
>> 2.34.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists