Hi Liqiong,
On 8/23/21 10:06 AM, liqiong wrote:
> Hi Simon :
>
> Using a temporary ima_rules variable is not working for "ima_policy_next".
>
> void *ima_policy_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *pos)
> {
> struct ima_rule_entry *entry = v;
> -
> + struct list_head *ima_rules_tmp = rcu_dereference(ima_rules);
> rcu_read_lock();
> entry = list_entry_rcu(entry->list.next, struct ima_rule_entry, list);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> (*pos)++;
>
> - return (&entry->list == ima_rules) ? NULL : entry;
> + return (&entry->list == ima_rules_tmp) ? NULL : entry;
> }
>
> It seems no way to fix "ima_rules" change within this function, it will alway
> return a entry if "ima_rules" being changed.
- I think rcu_dereference() should be called inside the RCU read lock
- Maybe we could cheat with:
return (&entry->list == &ima_policy_rules || &entry->list == &ima_default_rules) ? NULL : entry;
as that's the only two rulesets IMA ever use?
Admittedly, this is not as clean as previously, but it should work too.
The way I see it, the semaphore solution would not work here either,
as ima_policy_next() is called repeatedly as a seq_file
(it is set up in ima_fs.c) and we can't control the locking there:
we cannot lock across the seq_read() call (that cure could end up be
worse than the disease, deadlock-wise), so I fear we cannot protect
against a list update while a user is iterating with a lock.
So in both cases a cheat like "&entry->list == &ima_policy_rules || &entry->list == &ima_default_rules"
maybe need to be considered.
What do you think?
>
> Regrads,
>
> liqiong
Thanks,
Simon
