On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 04:16:50PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote: ... > > > > Heh, actually not :) It is due to commit > > > > commit 1f8266ff58840d698a1e96d2274189de1bdf7969 > > Author: Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Thu Sep 13 18:12:09 2018 +0200 > > > > which introduced might_sleep. Seems it is bad idea to send bug report > > without having a cup of coffee at the morning :) > > Yeah, I fixed one sleep-in-atomic bug and figured I'd throw a > might_sleep() in there for good measure... sigh. > I guess now I have to go through all the callers of > begin_current_label_crit_section() to see what else looks wrong... > Yes, I fear so. Need to check every caller just to be sure. > apparmor_ptrace_traceme() is wrong, as reported... > > apparmor_path_link() looks icky, but I'm not sure - from what I can > tell, it's called with an i_rwsem held for writing, and that probably > makes calling back into filesystem context from there a bad idea? > OTOH, it's just the i_rwsem of a newly-created path, so I don't know > whether that's actually an issue... > > security_path_rename() is called with two i_rwsem's held, but again, > I'm not sure whether that's a problem. Lets wait for fs people opinions.
