On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 8:23 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:15 AM Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 06/25/2018 12:34 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > If a user is accessing a file in selinuxfs with a pointer to a userspace
> > > buffer that is backed by e.g. a userfaultfd, the userspace access can
> > > stall indefinitely, which can block fsi->mutex if it is held.
> > >
> > > For sel_read_policy(), remove the locking, since this method doesn't seem
> > > to access anything that requires locking.
> > >
> > > For sel_read_bool(), move the user access below the locked region.
> > >
> > > For sel_write_bool() and sel_commit_bools_write(), move the user access
> > > up above the locked region.
> > >
> > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> > > Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Only question I have is wrt the Fixes line, i.e. was this an issue until userfaultfd was introduced, and if not,
> > do we need it to be back-ported any further than the commit which introduced it.
>
> Considering we are talking about v2.6.12 I have to wonder if anyone is
> bothering with backports for kernels that old. Even the RHEL-5.x
> based systems are at least on v2.6.18.
>
> Regardless, I think this is fine to merge as-is; thanks everyone.
FYI, I did have to remove the "fsi" variable from sel_read_policy() to
keep the compiler happy. Please double check to make sure your code
compiles cleanly in the future.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
_______________________________________________
Selinux mailing list
Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
