On 6/1/2018 9:29 AM, CHANDAN VN wrote: >>> I agree that the fix can be done simply by using "false" for >>> smack_inode_getsecurity(), but what happens with kernfs_node_setsecdata() >>> and smack_inode_notifysecctx(). kernfs_node_setsecdata() is probably ignorable >>> but smack_inode_notifysecctx() is sending the "ctx" to smack_inode_setsecurity() >>> and since "ctx" would be NULL because we used "false", smack_inode_setsecurity() >>> becomes dummy. > >> Thank you for pointing this out. You're right, there's more >> at issue here than changing the alloc flag will fix. I think >> that calling smack_inode_getsecurity() from smack_inode_getsecctx() >> is making the code more complicated than it needs to be. I will >> have a patch shortly. > If you think the patch would take time or is complicated, I suggest that the kfree() fix should go > to fix the leaks for now. Heavens no! The patch is very simple. I'm building a kernel with it now, and should have it tested and posted within a few hours. The implementation of smack_inode_getsecctx() that's there is understandable, but wrong. There's a much better way to do the job. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
