On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 14:28 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:16:59 -0500
> Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > integrity: ima iint radix_tree_lookup locking fix
> >
> > Based on Andrew Morton's comments:
> > - add missing locks around radix_tree_lookup in ima_iint_insert()
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Index: security-testing-2.6/security/integrity/ima/ima_iint.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- security-testing-2.6.orig/security/integrity/ima/ima_iint.c
> > +++ security-testing-2.6/security/integrity/ima/ima_iint.c
> > @@ -73,8 +73,10 @@ out:
> > if (rc < 0) {
> > kmem_cache_free(iint_cache, iint);
> > if (rc == -EEXIST) {
> > + spin_lock(&ima_iint_lock);
> > iint = radix_tree_lookup(&ima_iint_store,
> > (unsigned long)inode);
> > + spin_unlock(&ima_iint_lock);
> > } else
> > iint = NULL;
> > }
>
> Can the -EEXIST ever actually happen?
> On the inode_init_always() path (at least), I don't think that any
> other thread of control can have access to this inode*, so there is no
> way in which a race can result in someone else adding this inode
> first?
True, but for those inodes which were allocated before IMA was enabled
and are being allocated in ima_iint_find_insert_get(), it could be an
issue.
> Also, idle question: why does the radix tree exist at all? Would it
> have been possible to just add a `struct ima_iint_cache *' field to the
> inode instead?
Up until November the iint was defined directly in the inode. This
changed based on Christoph Hellwig's posting
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/10/14/170 where he said, "bloating the inode
for this is not an option".
Mimi Zohar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
