On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 8:51 AM Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 4:49 PM Lakshmi Ramasubramanian > <nramas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 8/24/20 3:18 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > >>>>> Is Ondrej's re-try approach I need to use to workaround policy reload issue? > > >>>> > > >>>> No, I think perhaps we should move the mutex to selinux_state instead > > >>>> of selinux_fs_info. selinux_fs_info has a pointer to selinux_state so > > >>>> it can then use it indirectly. Note that your patches are going to > > >>>> conflict with other ongoing work in the selinux next branch that is > > >>>> refactoring policy load and converting the policy rwlock to RCU. > > >>> > > >>> Yeah, and I'm experimenting with a patch on top of Stephen's RCU work > > >>> that would allow you to do this in a straightforward way without even > > >>> messing with the fsi->mutex. My patch may or may not be eventually > > >>> committed, but either way I'd recommend holding off on this for a > > >>> while until the dust settles around the RCU conversion. > > >> > > >> I can make the SELinux\IMA changes in "selinux next branch" taking > > >> dependencies on Stephen's patches + relevant IMA patches. > > > > > > I know it can be frustrating to hear what I'm about to say, but the > > > best option is probably just to wait a little to let things settle in > > > the SELinux -next branch. There is a lot of stuff going on right now > > > with patches flooding in (at least "flooding" from a SELinux kernel > > > development perspective) and we/I've haven't gotten through all of > > > them yet. > > > > > > > Could you please let me know when the current set of changes in SELinux > > next branch would be completed and be ready to take new changes? > > > > I mean, roughly - would it be a month from now or you expect that to > > take longer? > > I can't speak for Paul but I would expect it to be sooner rather than > later. Ondrej has some follow ups on top of my policy rcu conversion > but then it should be good to go. I think the major changes are now merged although there are still a couple of changes coming from Ondrej that could affect your code. For your purposes, the important things to note are: 1) The mutex has moved from selinux_fs_info to selinux_state and is now named policy_mutex. You will need to take it around your call to security_read_policy_kernel(). 2) security_policydb_len() was removed and security_read_policy() just directly reads the policydb len. You can do the same from your security_read_policy_kernel() variant. 3) Ondrej has a pending change to move the policycap[] array from selinux_state to selinux_policy so that it can be atomically updated with the policy. 4) Ondrej has a pending change to eliminate the separate initialized boolean from selinux_state and just test whether selinux_state.policy is non-NULL but as long as you are using selinux_initialized() to test, your code should be unaffected.
