Hi Mimi, Please review and consider this patch for mainlining if it looks OK to you. I've tested it on v4.17.0-rc6 and seems to be working fine. Petko --- >From e5cb36d4470cf64af2087fba4615ee8539385c98 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Petko Manolov <petko.manolov@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 14:10:57 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] Replace the open coded version with list_splice_tail_init_rcu() Signed-off-by: Petko Manolov <petko.manolov@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 17 ++--------------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c index d89bebf85421..722466f843ef 100644 --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c @@ -509,22 +509,9 @@ int ima_check_policy(void) */ void ima_update_policy(void) { - struct list_head *first, *last, *policy; + struct list_head *policy = &ima_policy_rules; - /* append current policy with the new rules */ - first = (&ima_temp_rules)->next; - last = (&ima_temp_rules)->prev; - policy = &ima_policy_rules; - - synchronize_rcu(); - - last->next = policy; - rcu_assign_pointer(list_next_rcu(policy->prev), first); - first->prev = policy->prev; - policy->prev = last; - - /* prepare for the next policy rules addition */ - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ima_temp_rules); + list_splice_tail_init_rcu(&ima_temp_rules, policy, synchronize_rcu); if (ima_rules != policy) { ima_policy_flag = 0; -- 2.11.0